How can science compete with religion when it comes to giving an emotional rush?

[Tapio]

Hello everyone!

This is my first post here. I'm a non-educated Finnish beginner in this kind of communication, so forgive me for the possible errors I'm about to make. All suggestions and corrections regarding my english typing are very welcome!

I thought I'd start a new thread based on some heavy thinking on a certain subject, and the need to get some fresh views and critique regarding it. A friend of mine introduced me to this forum. After following some threads for a while I decided this would be the perfect place to engage in some decent conversation.

But first I'd like to present a brief introduction on how I came up with question. If you're more intrested in the WHAT instead of the WHY, I suggest you jump to the bold part of the text.

So, I'll try to make this simple and compact. The question came to my mind after watching two great documentaries (Jesus camp and Friends of God) and reading four mind boggling books (God delusion, End of faith, God is not great and Breaking the spell). All this was part of a kind of self-healing process. For after years of frustration and emotional/rational dead-ends as a "true Christian", I finally found an effective way to get in contact with media to help me find the right questions. I'm still on the path, losing my religion by the minute. Opening up, getting lighter and digging more deeply than ever before into the fantastic knowledge and mystery of life.

Anyway, after these documentaries and books I felt extremely uneasy. My intellect and/or faith had never been challenged so radically. On the other hand there were the images of fanatic, even psychotic christians brainwashing their kids and youth with ways and words that felt so familiar and therefore (yes, as appaling as it may seem) safe. On the other hand I found the bright and piercing consciousness of these brilliant scientists with a baffling amount of (as it seemed at the time to a newbe on these subjects) undisputable facts and ideas, that if really given though to would most likely completely demolish the foundation of what I'd been tought as the truth. I chose to follow the latter. Then it hit me. The terrifying challenge that lies before us.

(if this thread will bloom into a fruitfull conversation, as I hope it will, I'll explain more widely the reasoning behind the ultimate question, but for now, to keep it interesting, I'll go straight to the point)

WHAT DOES MODERN SCIENCE HAVE TO OFFER KIDS AND YOUNG PEOPLE THAT WILL IN ANY WAY BE CAPABLE OF COMPETING WITH THE INTENSE AND OVERWHELMING EMOTIONAL RUSH, FEELING OF TOGETHERNESS AND THE ULTIMATE (belief in) KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEANING OF LIFE THAT RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND SEREMONY INDUCES?

I've worked as a teacher and youthcare person for years. Kids and young adults (at least in Finland) these days desire nothing as much as intense emotional experiences. What causes the rush doesn't seem to matter, the stronger the better. Most of them think of science as the most boring possible way of seeing the world. And as mass-media's confusing and delusional grip on these young minds grows ever stronger, it can be clearly seen that in the end, for many of them, as they age and become adults the only two options of keeping these emotional highs (and lows, of course, for without one the other doesn't exist) consistent are religion or developing strong dependencies (drugs, work, sports, sex, fame etc.).

I will definetely have to make corrections on the question and explain everything further, but this is enough to start a debate on, I think.

What say ye?

[Hokulele]

What does modern science have to offer kids and young people that will in any way be capable of competing with the intense and overwhelming emotional rush, feeling of togetherness and the ultimate (belief in) knowledge of the meaning of life that religious practice and ceremony induces?


Welcome to the forums!

This is an interesting question, as it has far more to do with presentation than content. Anything can be shown to be intense and overwhelming if the person doing the showing is skilled. It really has nothing to do with the message. As an example, I offer services as a semi-professional astronomer to groups where I live. I bring the equipment, set it up, and show people the universe. Even through a decent amateur telescope, most of the universe looks like ....

... fuzzy blobs.

How do I get people excited about looking at a bunch of fuzzy blobs? First, I make sure people really understand the scope of what they are seeing ("That bright smudge in the middle of your eyepiece is a WHOLE OTHER GALAXY! The light you are seeing right now left over 2 MILLION YEARS AGO and you are finally seeing it TONIGHT! There weren't even PEOPLE around on the earth when that starlight started its journey.")

Children and young adults are the best audience for such presentations. They are naturally curious, often naturally skeptical, and want to be entertained. If they can see it themselves (astronomy fits this wonderfully), if they can reproduce it themselves (fill soap bubbles with hydrogen and light them on fire), and if they can experience the wonders of science directly, they can see the immediate, dramatic impact science has on their lives, and with any luck, they will hold that lesson forever.

ETA: One other thing I thought of, challenge them. This is something that they do not encounter with most religions, and rarely in other classes. The good ones will rise to the challenge. The not-so-good may surprise you. :)

[geni]

Heroin, LSD. There are other drugs.

But I feel a case of a badly defined question. Science is simply the aplication of the scientific method (whatever that is).

Emotional rushes are generaly to be avoided since they lack objectiveity although there can be a quiet satisfaction in being the first to see a new compound. Some people mess around with humanism or whatever but from certian viewpoints that can be found rather amuseing. Meaning of life well there are several scientific aproaches to this one although they tend not to be too emotionaly satisfying. Partly it depends on scale for example at the most extreme:

"The possibility that we are living in a false vacuum has never been a cheering one to contemplate. Vacuum decay is the ultimate ecological catastrophe; in the new vacuum there are new constants of nature; after vacuum decay, not only is life as we know it impossible, so is chemistry as we know it. However, one could always draw stoic comfort from the possibility that perhaps in the course of time the new vacuum would sustain, if not life as we know it, at least some structures capable of knowing joy. This possibility has now been eliminated"

Science isn't cuddly but then neither is religion.

[Hokulele]

Science isn't cuddly but then neither is religion.


I agree with most of what you said, but I would argue that something does not have to be cuddly to have an emotional impact.

[Georg]

I agree with most of what you said, but I would argue that something does not have to be cuddly to have an emotional impact.

Yes:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1565848e1eeadd18a6.jpg

[Evolved Wookie]

Dinosaurs: not cuddly, but they pack a wallop.

To an extent I'm not qualified to respond, since I've been an affirmed atheist for as long as I can remember. I don't know the emotional rush of religious fervour.

Dinosaurs are cool though. I know I get a rush thinking about the grace and elegance of evolution and the astronomers I know still turn out some of the most astoundingly beautiful images I've ever seen - even the ones without Jennifer Connelly in them.

I will claim some experience of religion in a very distorted form; that is in roleplaying. I'm sure many will take umbrage with this, but playing a 24-hour event can be extremely emotionally engaging and when the character you play happens to know, with absolute, objective certainty, that their goddess exists it’s a very powerful intuition. It gives you reassurance and certainty in the world – a sense that you know where you are and that what you’re doing is justified.

In the real world, of course, such absolute objective certainty is provided by the scientific method. (I use the term ‘certainty’ here glibly, of course. I’m not about to claim that current science is anywhere near absolute truth.) I get a rush from knowing that, with a pretty high degree of certainty, dinosaurs really did exist. Really. They did! No, honest! There really were enormous, lizard-like things that could swallow a horse that stomped around. How cool is that!?!?

The universe is, I have every reason to accept, full of beautiful things! Nebulae and gas-giants, black-holes and gravitational lensing! They all really exist, not just in theory, but in observed practice. You can put an atomic clock of a jumbo-jet and measure relativistic time-dilation.

(Here I must apologise. I’m at work and I can’t spare time to find citations for all these things, but they should be easily google-fu’d or you can kneel at the altar of Wikipedia: The Source of All Knowledge(tm) and be enlightened.)

For me, that’s rush enough. Not just that these things are true, but that I can prove them true, if I have time and opportunity. I did a physics degree and I’ve demonstrated wave particle duality to myself, practically, on a table, to my satisfaction and I know that if I were so inclined I could find the same level of objective proof for almost anything (anything real, that is) I can think of. I don’t have to rely on badly written false histories or the paranoid proclamations of the jealous wealthy. It’s all there and it’s all real and none of it is hidden from me.

I think that’s pretty cool. That gives me a rush.

…and here I feel I must apologise. I’ve rambled. I’m relatively new to trying to address such weighty topics on a forum (the impending squirrel invasion is more my scene) and I feel that I have some way to go before I am as deft and elegant as some of the posters here. Never the less, I thought I’d have a go!

Hugs to you all.

[geni]

I agree with most of what you said, but I would argue that something does not have to be cuddly to have an emotional impact.

I don't think the OP is looking for the kind of emotional impact dropping a nuclear device on a large city causes.

[Hokulele]

I don't think the OP is looking for the kind of emotional impact dropping a nuclear device on a large city causes.


Well, she/he did say she/he was working with teenagers...

:duck:

[westprog]

WHAT DOES MODERN SCIENCE HAVE TO OFFER KIDS AND YOUNG PEOPLE THAT WILL IN ANY WAY BE CAPABLE OF COMPETING WITH THE INTENSE AND OVERWHELMING EMOTIONAL RUSH, FEELING OF TOGETHERNESS AND THE ULTIMATE (belief in) KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEANING OF LIFE THAT RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND CEREMONY INDUCES?


Neither science nor religion are about feeling good. They are about objective truth. Neither can compete with, say, a Led Zeppellin reunion. Nor should they be trying.

[Evolved Wookie]

Neither science nor religion are about feeling good. They are about objective truth. Neither can compete with, say, a Led Zeppellin reunion. Nor should they be trying.

Are you saying that 'The Zep' are objective truth?

[SimonD]

Think about the rush you got from reading those books. When the dots began to connect inside your mind. When it began to make sense and it was real, provable. No false promises, no threats of damnation. The universe is as it is.

Personally for me, the new discoveries that science brings us, whether it is a distant galaxy or a new species on earth, provides a real rush. The thought that the human race is moving forward, that we have found something new. That someone picked up an idea and ran with it, expanded on it, found new solutions and usually new questions to be answer.

I suggest that you check out the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan

(Though the thought that maybe Led Zeppelin may tour one last time provides me with the biggest rush of all :D)

[Mashuna]

Are you saying that 'The Zep' are objective truth?

Yes. But only the original lineup.

[SimonD]

Yes. But only the original lineup.

We are way of topic.

But Jason Bonham has got to the best alternative

[Kuko 4000]

Neither science nor religion are about feeling good. They are about objective truth. Neither can compete with, say, a Led Zeppellin reunion. Nor should they be trying.


Yeah, but the ways to present the message differ greatly. And, in fact, religion is trying and competing with excellent results. I think this is one of the things Tapio is talking about. For example, the importance of music and social events in religious upbringing is enormous, and full of emotional content and charge that is easy and natural to cling to. Afaik, science just can't compete in that area. We need way more TAM's, Greydon Squares and LHC / Cern Raps.

Here's something interesting for you T, in case you haven't seen it before, The Cern Rap:

j50ZssEojtM

And welcome to the forums Tapio, good to have you here :)

I think this is a very important point.

Ps. Richard Dawkins has long hinted that one of his next big projects will be a book for kids, about evolution. Thumbs up from me.

[Evolved Wookie]

I have to say, I don't believe in the Zep. I know, I know, that makes me a heretic, but what can I say? I've investigated a good deal of evidence and I just cannot agree with the sentiment that they are the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread.

And while we're at it, Jimi wasn't so wonderful either. Very good, I admit, but not the epitome of axemanship that people represent him as; more socially important than technically. There, I've said it, even if it negates my right to be heard!

ETA: Sorry for the derail; it's an innate skill of mine. I'll try to stop it.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Welcome!

I’m not sure, but the question might be somewhat misplaced. I’ve always though (especially in conjunction with my own experiences as a youngster) that it’s not always so much about what the activities themselves do, but rather that young people are in such a developmental stage where emotional fluctuations are going to be strong regardless. As we grow older – at least most of us – the fluctuations tend to level down a bit. Science can perhaps explain these things? Although only for a few will actually doing or reading science become the actual venue for emotional play.

Thus I feel the real question is far broader than simply science vs. religion; i.e. what venues are regarded as potentially constructive or destructive, and which one should be encouraged or discouraged? I guess religion vs. science seems more relevant to you right now, but that might simply be a case where you still find it hard to look past this either-or dichotomy. Perhaps your own recent change in values still carries a certain momentum?

[SimonD]

I have to say, I don't believe in the Zep. I know, I know, that makes me a heretic, but what can I say? I've investigated a good deal of evidence and I just cannot agree with the sentiment that they are the Greatest Thing Since Sliced Bread.

And while we're at it, Jimi wasn't so wonderful either. Very good, I admit, but not the epitome of axemanship that people represent him as; more socially important than technically. There, I've said it, even if it negates my right to be heard!

ETA: Sorry for the derail; it's an innate skill of mine. I'll try to stop it.

My apologies as well...

Always thought that Plant was an arrogant ass and I've heard better
guitarist then Jimmy. However the 'heart and soul' of Led Zep (Jones and Bonham) combined with the other two brought us some the best music ever (IMHO). The sum is better then its parts.

I feel a moderation coming....

[m_huber]

Science vs. Religion.

False dichotomy. My father is a pastor. My mother is a chemist. They met in seminary. I am a geologist. My older brother is a chemical engineer. My younger brother is studying polymer science. We were raised with religion and science, and we have chosen science. The venn diagram of science and religion has very little overlap.

With this in mind, there is no need to deal with the emotions of religion and science. Religious rapture is often experienced by people in churches, but the majority of those people go and get a job doing something not related to religion. The thing we, as scientists, must do is convince young people that science is interesting (which it is) and that it is not impossibly difficult (which it isn't). Otherwise, religion can do its own thing.

Kids play video games, listen to rock concerts, play sports, go to church... the list of things that bring emotional rush is huge. Science doesn't have to fight that.

[Kuko 4000]

The thing we, as scientists, must do is convince young people that science is interesting (which it is) and that it is not impossibly difficult (which it isn't). Otherwise, religion can do its own thing.

Kids play video games, listen to rock concerts, play sports, go to church... the list of things that bring emotional rush is huge. Science doesn't have to fight that.


I agree that the big issue to concentrate on is how to present science in an interesting way. Pretty much what Hokulele does, but in a systematic and concentrated effort, and of course on a large scale. I'm one of the people who think that science is a much better basis for human life and future than religion. And looking at the world today, there is too little understanding of science, and too much trust and / or respect towards religion and superstition for its own good. I think science needs to shift up a few gears in PR.

Religions relationship to sports or vgames is a bit different than religions relationship to science. Religions claim to know the answers and science aims to find the answers. The clashes are inevitable in many things that people build their whole lives on. For this reason, I think science should "fight" back by finding creative ways to be more easily approachable to people of all ages.

[Wowbagger]

Medical science saves lives. :)

[Tapio]

Thank you all for your response!

It's very encouraging to find your first post bringing up several interesting viewpoints.

But it also seems that my question is either truly misplaced or the whole view of it so hard to grasp by anybody else than people working with kids that I must broaden the scope.

1. I'm in no way trying to advocate the unfortunately common "religion vs. science" attitude. The question relates more to the emotional effect they have on the person "practicing" them, especially young people.

2. Hokulele there pointed out a few good things that I can relate to. Unfortunately none of them (the natural enthusiasm and sceptic attitude of children, the joy of learning new things etc.) can take most young people to fight for their cause. Fun is fun, religious fervor is a completely different ballgame.

3. Some comments I take are attempting to make the whole point trivial. Maybe it is for people who aren't faced by these things daily. But I believe that how we connect to, and how we confront the way our youth feels today will in itself be of a huge significance tomorrow. So I feel these things shouldn't be ignored. Unless all hope is gone.

It's way too easy to say that science doesn't compete with religion in the minds of kids, for this is exactly the opposite of what MOST religiously fanatic adults are indoctrinating their kids with.

I'd still like to hear comments on the original question. As far as I can see it, the comment of KUKO 4000 leaves little hope for a scientific worldview to get any more supporters in young people. If what was written of Dawkins is true, though, I must pay due respect to the man!

I have family responsibilities to attend to now, but I'll be back.

Please, keep it coming!

[The Man]

I can say that I have found no emotional “rush” or even satisfaction from religion; it has just never worked for me. I have, however, gotten plenty from science. Whether it was that first experience as a kid of taking something apart and figuring out how it works or as an adult designing something new. From providing new storage cases for the military (including a group of three cases that went into every Sea wolf submarine produced at that time and may still be used for the smaller Virginia class submarines) to just improving the equipment that brings electricity to your home, even the creation of a new testing method that has since been adopted as an industry standard. The successful culmination of hours, months and even years of work can be a significant emotional rush, in whatever works for you, whether it be science, religion or even both. I think the real key is showing them how science can be interesting and exciting, like in some of the robotics competitions (not exactly as exciting as “Robot Wars”, but even that might work).

[Evolved Wookie]

I suspect there's a real problem with exciting children about science because of the prism of adulthood through which it is presented.

I regularly meet scientists who are so dogmatic in their insitence of absolute accuracy in any explanation that they can't explain anything to anyone, let alone make it exciting and engaging. My wife is press officer for a major research institution and trying to get career scientists to grasp the fundamentals of communication with a non-technical audience is a constant struggle for her.

Science presented in small steps is far easier to grasp than big lumps-o-theory and so long as the end point is kept in sight, the idea that you're piecing together a real understanding of the world, one step at a time, is exhillarating. I've explained wave-particle duality to a group of archeologists over several pints of stout and it's not so hard to allow them to understand and to interest them as long as you're prepared to start a long way back...I seem to recall having to begin with (mechanical) wave interference in that instance.

Political agendas however skew the ideal path of dissemination of knowledge. Suddenly it becomes important to give information in one, huge, accurate, but ultimately inpenitrable lump, or to present it in a purposefully confusing way so as to make bogus refutation all the more simple. Unfortunately, all too often, those two opposite agendas result in the same problem; an overabundance of pedantry when a little patience and genuine enthusiasm to teach would make the world of difference.

I honestly believe the thrill of really learning is enough to excite anyone, but - in my own experience - the scientific community frequently shoots itself in the foot in that regard.

[Bikewer]

Although folks like most of us on the forum are well familiar with the heady rush of knowledge and understanding and the wonders of nature, I think it is hard to compete with the powerful emotional reaction many cite as the foundation of their religious beliefs.

I just listened to an interview with a prominent author this Sunday on NPR's To The Best Of Our Knowledge program. The fellow was afflicted with cancer, and underwent the extensive and debilitating standard treatment, which was successful. Instead of giving kudos to science-based medicine for his cure, he had a potent emotional reaction that convinced him that he had been "saved" by God.
Now it's not unusual for folks in a depressed state to latch on to religion to help them through the period, especially if they have been inculcated early in life. It's very difficult to convince someone that an emotional reaction is not to be trusted, and that "positive" emotions are in no wise different from "negative" emotions. Which is why the application of the scientific method seeks to eliminate emotional response...

[ImaginalDisc]

I've been in churches and at religious rituals of all sorts. How dull and small they are.

I've got a small collection of trilobites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite), ancient organisms that scurried about the sea floor and right next to them on my shelf a beautifully preserved bony fish. Millions of years ago, these organisms were the most sophisticated multi-cellular life on the planet, and now I can look at them in detail. That's mind boggling.

My father plays golf obsessively, and is a fit man of almost fifty years. Ten years ago he was a bed ridden invalid because he had a herniated disk in his back. Modern medicine has given him back something no priest or shaman or ever could. Every story he tells me of a birdie or par is a reminder of how much science has given my family.

Look around you. Every car, piece of clothing, building, computer, television, ipod, and almost anything you could point to are the products of thousands of years of scientific and technological achievement. I can't make dinner, drive across town or post on the internet without being reminded what a courageous pursuit of scientific truth means to us.

Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can find pious chanting and archaic rituals more compelling than all that we have and are discovering.

[kedo1981]

Yes
Go see "Cosmic Journey" in omnimax

[fishbob]

Science vs. Religion.
. . . . .
Kids play video games, listen to rock concerts, play sports, go to church... the list of things that bring emotional rush is huge. Science doesn't have to fight that.

I think that science does need to fight that.

Many people, maybe most people, sort themselves socially in an 'ismist' us-vs-them' process. 'Evolution is the devil', 'they took our jobs', 'life is cheap to that sort' are some examples (racism, tribalism, cronyism). The comfort and rush of finding some place to belong has appeal. Many organizations - including churches - play on that appeal. Advocates of science play on it too, we feel smarter than those poor deluded saps - justifiably so considering how wrong those poor deluded saps are.

[Cavemonster]

I wish I could believe in religion. To go to bed at night knowing that things will work out in the best way possible. To know that one is serving a higher purpose and to have moral certainty!

Those must be great feelings! I can't access them because it isn't possible for me to believe what I know to be untrue.

An uncaring universe where things happen for undirected reasons is a much harder sell than a universe that loves you and pays attention to your thoughts.

[bokonon]

I'm kind of surprised to hear this question coming from Finland. My understanding was that Christian fundamentalism was a force to be reckoned with in the Bible Belt of the United States, but that Scandinavia was solidly secular. I guess the other big anti-science religion is Islamic fundamentalism, which holds sway mostly in the middle east and southeast Asia.

When I look at the big picture, I don't really see the crisis. Yes, creationists are attempting to erode the teaching of evolution, but I don't see them having much luck with that, outside of their own home-schooled children. Young-earth creationists and biblical literalists must also necessarily attack other areas of science, such as geology and astronomy. By doing so, they marginalize themselves to some extent, like Amish who reject modern technology altogether. I think modern society can tolerate some level of such marginalization. There are still plenty of people with the desire and the aptitude to pursue science and technology who will continue to shrink the void of ignorance.

I think religion and science can co-exist, for the most part. Many religious scientists today, like scientists from an age when virtually everyone espoused religion, see their scientific pursuits as compatible with their religion. They are teasing God's secrets out of God's creation. They don't feel the need to regard everything in the Bible or the Quran as literal truth; the literal truth is available in the universe itself, for anyone who seeks it.

Looking at the big picture, even if fundamentalist Islam overwhelms Europe and fundamentalist Christianity achieves hegemony in the United States, the only result that I see is that those areas will become backwaters in the tide of human progress, as the Middle East once did. Perhaps China and India will ascend to become the torchbearers. I don't think the march of human progress will cease, it will just move to someplace where knowledge and learning are still valued.

I do think it's possible to make science interesting and even exciting to young people, but I don't think science is ever going to be about singing songs and building community.

While I think it's necessary to keep creationism from creeping into science classes, I don't despair at the relatively high percentage of my fellow Americans who don't "believe" in evolution. For the most part, they're unwilling to examine, or unable to comprehend, the network of facts supporting evolutionary theory. Their lack of belief doesn't mean they can't contribute to modern society. An engineer designing computer chips doesn't need to be able to defend the theory of evolution to do his job. A young-earth creationist can still test my eyes, and prescribe vision-correcting glasses, even if he doesn't believe men share common ancestry with other animals.

I get a rush from discovering how things work, and don't have any interest at all in watching professional athletes compete to see who is "better" on any given day. Some people like neither, and some people like both. I think there's room for all kinds, as long as there are ENOUGH scientists and supporters of science. From where I sit, it looks like that will be the case for the foreseeable future.

[Tapio]

Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can find pious chanting and archaic rituals more compelling than all that we have and are discovering.

As far as adults are concerned, I mean adults of a society with a wide range of possibilities to get knowledge about the things you mentioned, I find myself equally baffled.

BUT. As this conversation focuses especially on the younger mind, I'll have to ask you. When is the last time you've visited an evangelical rock concert (like Battlecry)? If the answer is never, I strongly suggest watching the already mentioned documentary Friends of God. It gives a pretty descent glimpse into the extensive ways of intense psychological manipulation tens of thousands of kids and youngsters are going through, daily.

Though the conversation is interesting, I feel we can go further. Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. What I'm searching for in ideas doesn't have to do with how to get kids excited of science, not how to give them the great feeling of achievement, not how to raise their interest in how the world functions, not how to induce the amazement of realizing intricate facts of the cosmos. All this and a whole lot more is truly valuable and noble in human experience.

But it is no match when it comes to the intensity of feeling saved, death defying, connecting to your immortal soul with thousands of others likeminded. Simple exhilarration is helplessly left behind in the wake of feeling yourself one with the Creator of Everything, let alone living with Him in a personal relationship.

Rationalizing, dropping the veil of mystery and supernatural, showing that the real world is so much more interesting than all the fantasies put together, is for millions of religious children and young adults a synonyme for coldness of heart, for dry, calculated, machine-like living that represents more a life of an "inferior" simple animal than what God created as a picture of Himself.

I know this gets some of you furious, maybe even sad, thinking about how ignorant and pathetic these dark aged barbarians can be. And if the Homo Sapiens wasn't such a violent animal, I'd have no problem whatsoever to leave these people to dwell in their fantasyworld and indoctrinate their children the way they see it.

This is crucial. Nothing is as easy as to react violently in the heat of the most intensive fear-based emotional rush. Nothing is as easy as to create the most intense fear-experience in a fanatically religious person...you see where I'm aiming at?

AND if the youth of today are living for the most intense emotional experience...well, there you have it. That's why I'd like to get views on CAN science or scientific thinking or the teaching of science or any scientific method be a worthy opponent when battling for the minds of young people today?

Bokonon, great text btw, thanks!

[bokonon]

If you want an intense emotional experience, try skydiving. It was a little TOO intense for me, even when I was young and certain I was immortal.

[Tapio]

Let's make this clear.

I don't have a problem of not getting "enough out" of science.

[rocketdodger]

Unfortunately none of them (the natural enthusiasm and sceptic attitude of children, the joy of learning new things etc.) can take most young people to fight for their cause. Fun is fun, religious fervor is a completely different ballgame.

Why on Earth do you think fervor that drives young people to fight, killing others and getting killed themselves, is a good thing?

[Tapio]

Why on Earth do you think fervor that drives young people to fight, killing others and getting killed themselves, is a good thing?

Sorry, you've misinterpereted me. I'm not giving these emotions any kind of labels, deciding what's good, what's bad. I'm not so good in typing English, I see the mistake in using the word ufortunately in the wrong place. Thanks for pointing it out.

It would be interesting to hear if people have ideas on how the same kind of fervor could (or couldn't) be induced in young people through learning science.

[rocketdodger]

This is crucial. Nothing is as easy as to react violently in the heat of the most intensive fear-based emotional rush. Nothing is as easy as to create the most intense fear-experience in a fanatically religious person...you see where I'm aiming at?

AND if the youth of today are living for the most intense emotional experience...well, there you have it. That's why I'd like to get views on CAN science or scientific thinking or the teaching of science or any scientific method be a worthy opponent when battling for the minds of young people today?

Actually, you are quite wrong. Among the young, religion is trumped by many things, including entertainment (television, movies, video games, whatever), sexual activities, drugs, and in general any other social activity that young people tend to engage in -- all else being equal.

The pattern we see throughout human history, when it comes to people adopting new religious ideas, is that religion actively attempts to prevent all else from being equal. You should familiarize yourself with memetics if you want a real answer to your question.

[Tapio]

This is absolutely true for most kids, but it doesn't take more than a couple fanatics to completely eradicate the rest.

Regarding memes, I'm working on it. So much to learn...

[rocketdodger]

I'm only trying to find out if people have ideas on how the same fervor could be induced in young people through science.

It can't -- by definition fervor implies a level of irrationality in mindset that science actively tries to avoid. That is the whole point of science.

You are equivocating positive fervor and "fun" or "positive emotion," which are not necessarily the same thing and not necessarily good or bad. Who is more fervent, a jihad soldier rabidly killing infidels or an astronaut sitting on the launch pad at ignition? Who is having more fun? Who is more emotional? There is no right answer unless you use a well defined meaning of "fervor," "fun," "emotion," etc, and once you do that, you will realize that you are trying to compare apples and oranges.

[westprog]

Science vs. Religion.

False dichotomy. My father is a pastor. My mother is a chemist. ...

Kids play video games, listen to rock concerts, play sports, go to church... the list of things that bring emotional rush is huge. Science doesn't have to fight that.

If you try to tell kids that doing science will bring them the same kind of emotional rewards as their team winning the superbowl, or winning a fight, or sex, then they won't believe you. And they'll be right. Conversely, if you tell them that going to church is that good, then you'll get the same response.

The sensible approach is to say that they can do all the other things they want to do, and they can also, if they wish, find a place for science and/or religion, without losing anything. That is actually true, and so it is possible that they might believe it.

[westprog]

It's way too easy to say that science doesn't compete with religion in the minds of kids, for this is exactly the opposite of what MOST religiously fanatic adults are indoctrinating their kids with.


Using the term fanatic kind of auto-skews the sample, doesn't it?

Even in the case of the most extreme fundamentalist creationist there's no requirement to abandon science as a whole.

[Tapio]

It can't -- by definition fervor implies a level of irrationality in mindset that science actively tries to avoid. That is the whole point of science.

Thanks! In my book that was the first right on the mark hit regarding the OP.

Westprog, the word fanatic for me is the only English word I know to describe the kind of person I'm referring to.

Abandoning sience isn't part of the picture I'm after here. I know people who're very educated in science, but still feel it to be completely cold in emotional context and inspiration. So they use religion to compensate for that.

[Fnord]

I finally told my pastor that I didn't care much at all for religion, and that religion actually diverts people away from their core beliefs (whatever those may or may not be).

I don't think I'll be a church Elder much longer ...

:D

[rocketdodger]

I know people who're very educated in science, but still feel it to be completely cold in emotional context and inspiration. So they use religion to compensate for that.

Everyone who is educated in science feels it to be completely cold in emotional context and inspiration -- because science isn't supposed to offer emotional context or inspiration.

Science is simply a means to acquire knowledge about the world. It is a mental tool -- nothing more. It offers no information as to why one would want to acquire that knowledge, or what one should do with it when they have it.

Would one claim that a hammer should offer the emotional context and inspiration of a building it helped build? Of course not, because a hammer is just a tool -- what it builds is important.

But of course, people are stupid idiots. That is why religious morons can argue that their cathedrals are beautiful because of the god-given artistic sentiment of the human being rather than the architectural technology that was used to build them, and that individuals are saved from death by love and god rather than the medical science used to heal them, but that the weapons humans use to kill each other in war are solely a product of evil "science" rather than the darker side of human nature.

[westprog]

Thanks! In my book that was the first right on the mark hit regarding the OP.

Westprog, the word fanatic for me is the only English word I know to describe the kind of person I'm referring to.


Yes, but if you're saying that all the fanatics are the ones holding fanatical views, that isn't that surprising. Nor does it really tell us how much of a problem religion vs. science is if you segregate the religious fanatics. How many religious people are fanatical? How many of them are so fanatical that it prevents them from being able to do science?


Abandoning sience isn't part of the picture I'm after here. I know people who're very educated in science, but still feel it to be completely cold in emotional context and inspiration. So they use religion to compensate for that.

[I Ratant]

I dunno... When that GBU-10 went down the central air shaft of the Iraqi Air Force Headquarters in the middle of downtown Baghdad from an F-117 flying straight and level, no evasive tactics needed, and knowing I had a part in making that occur, there's a "rush" there. :)
.
From my religious "rushes", once I realized they were just me responding to a situation, that kinda put paid on the whole idea of anything external participating in my life.

[Kuko 4000]

If you try to tell kids that doing science will bring them the same kind of emotional rewards as their team winning the superbowl, or winning a fight, or sex, then they won't believe you. And they'll be right. Conversely, if you tell them that going to church is that good, then you'll get the same response.


I have to disagree here. My understanding is that, compared to the scientifically inclined kids and teens, many religious kids and teens think (for one reason or another) that going to different religious meetings IS more emotionally rewarding or fulfilling than any of the examples you mention. By religious meetings I mean the unscrupulously and carefully planned events that are available for all ages, from kids Jesus Camps to Battlecrys to Benny Hinn type miracle healing spectacles, week in, week out, in real life or in TV. It's the combination of earthly ecstatic experiences with the amazingly powerful supernatural message of the personal God that wins the emotional rush contest, even against Led Zeppelin.

Of course, it has to be said, I don't have any data to back me up, this is all based on my personal experience, common sense, discussions with religious (and scientifically inclined) people and numerous different documentaries about the subject.

[Tapio]

Thanks Kuko!

One more fair answer to my question.

So, as it's night in Finland and the kids are asleep, the time has come for this geezer to spend some quality time with his wife.

I'll get back on the subject tomorrow.

The situation on giving the most intense emotional rush (measured by...to be continued tomorrow) to young people (in my account):

Science: 1 (skydiving)
Religion: 2 (examples on how science isn't capable, nor supposed to, induce religious-like ferver)

AND THIS STILL ISN'T A CLASSIC SCIENCE VS. RELIGION-THREAD.;)

Expanding our vision, sweet lucid dreaming folks!

[ferd burfle]

The OP made me think of the passage in Richard Rhodes' book The Making of the Atomic Bomb where he describes Einstein's realization that his General Theory of Relativity explained previously unresolved anomalies in the orbit of Mercury. I don't have the book to hand so I'm paraphrasing. Einstein was so gobsmacked by this this realization, this confirmation of his unpublished theory, that he was in a daze for several days. (Sorry!) He was the only person alive who knew this wonderful thing, this fundamental truth about the universe we live in!

Did it compare with religious ecstasy? All ecstatic states are subjective so who knows? But even third hand, in the reading, I found the description of Einstein's state of mind to be thrilling and deeply moving in a way that the church services of my youth never were.

Ferd

[AntiTelharsic]

WHAT DOES MODERN SCIENCE HAVE TO OFFER KIDS AND YOUNG PEOPLE THAT WILL IN ANY WAY BE CAPABLE OF COMPETING WITH THE INTENSE AND OVERWHELMING EMOTIONAL RUSH, FEELING OF TOGETHERNESS AND THE ULTIMATE (belief in) KNOWLEDGE OF THE MEANING OF LIFE THAT RELIGIOUS PRACTICE AND SEREMONY INDUCES?

Science doesn't give ultimate knowledge -- that's a delusion, and I don't think it should be replaced by another. I would suggest that they get out of the city some night and just look up at the sky for a while, and then go learn some astronomy and cosmology. There's plenty of beauty and awe to be had from real things and real understanding.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. . . . To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull facilities can comprehend only in the most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the ranks of the devoutly religious men."
Albert Einstein, What I Believe (1930)

[godless dave]

What does modern science have to offer kids and young people that will in any way be capable of competing with the intense and overwhelming emotional rush, feeling of togetherness and the ultimate (belief in) knowledge of the meaning of life that religious practice and ceremony induces?

Nothing, and it's not supposed to. If you want an intense and overwhelming emotional rush, go to a concert or take in some natural beauty.

[schlitt]

Science can offer the truth, Religion can offer comfort. For most people comfort trumps truth.

The wonder and amazement many people find in science is not a replacement for a longing to always exist and be with loved ones. Science simply has no way to compete with comforting delusion on this level, and this is a large reason as to why comforting delusions are still pervasive.

No matter how much wonder you find in Science, the truth about our mortality still remains.

[m_huber]

I'm beginning to become concerned that the OP has a skewed view of science. Science is all about taking things apart. It isn't about feeling good. In fact, some of the best scientists that I have ever met are grumpy old men. The ambiance of most scientists is closer to Socrates than [pick your favorite sports captain]. A good church rally winds up feeling like a pep rally before the big game. A good science meeting involves a laptop computer, a powerpoint presentation, and a room full of people scribbling notes on the edges of scraps of paper.

The religious fervor that makes someone spontaneously fall to their knees, throw their hands in the air and start babbling in unintelligible syllables will never be matched by science. No scientist ever falls down in rapturous worship of their research. The feeling from science is closer to "Oh, neat! Now I understand!" Some of the most interesting people I have met are lay-scientists. People who, late in life, decided that they wanted to unravel some mysteries. They educate themselves and run their own backyard experiments. Some of these become fairly complex. This comes from curiosity. Not loneliness. Not wondering who runs the universe. Not seeking the meaning of life. Just plain, simple, curiosity. That is what drives science.

If you want to get kids interested in science, there are many ways to do so. There are books and websites devoted to the subject. If you want to make science into some kind of religion, then can it. Systematized research would be severely jeopardized by an overabundance of emotion. There is plenty in science that is attractive without activating our primal emotions.

[bokonon]

Just plain, simple, curiosity. That is what drives science.

If you want to get kids interested in science, there are many ways to do so.
Kids are naturally curious. I think the thrill-seekers alluded to in the OP must be older, teenagers at least. When they're entering school, cultivating an interest in science should be almost inevitable.

[slingblade]

There's a place at one of our schools here--not sure if it's an elementary or middle school--called the Math and Science Lab. Inside are all sorts of working, hands-on experiments with scientific principles.

The moment I entered the place, I was giggly, eager, anticipatory, and above all, totally thrilled with each and every exhibit. I felt 10 years old, and didn't want to leave. Ever.

Science can do this.

[Piscivore]

I'm beginning to become concerned that the OP has a skewed view of science. Science is all about taking things apart. It isn't about feeling good. In fact, some of the best scientists that I have ever met are grumpy old men. The ambiance of most scientists is closer to Socrates than [pick your favorite sports captain]. A good church rally winds up feeling like a pep rally before the big game. A good science meeting involves a laptop computer, a powerpoint presentation, and a room full of people scribbling notes on the edges of scraps of paper.

The religious fervor that makes someone spontaneously fall to their knees, throw their hands in the air and start babbling in unintelligible syllables will never be matched by science. No scientist ever falls down in rapturous worship of their research. The feeling from science is closer to "Oh, neat! Now I understand!" Some of the most interesting people I have met are lay-scientists. People who, late in life, decided that they wanted to unravel some mysteries. They educate themselves and run their own backyard experiments. Some of these become fairly complex. This comes from curiosity. Not loneliness. Not wondering who runs the universe. Not seeking the meaning of life. Just plain, simple, curiosity. That is what drives science.

If you want to get kids interested in science, there are many ways to do so. There are books and websites devoted to the subject. If you want to make science into some kind of religion, then can it. Systematized research would be severely jeopardized by an overabundance of emotion. There is plenty in science that is attractive without activating our primal emotions.


You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention... Science has it all.

[Fnord]

How can science compete with religion when it comes to giving an emotional rush?


More loud, sparkly explosions; fewer quiet, drab lectures.

[Cactus Wren]

And boom de yada. When I think about things like every atom in every cell of my body being made out of ashes of stars, I have a boom de yada moment.

[SimonD]

3. Some comments I take are attempting to make the whole point trivial. Maybe it is for people who aren't faced by these things daily. But I believe that how we connect to, and how we confront the way our youth feels today will in itself be of a huge significance tomorrow. So I feel these things shouldn't be ignored. Unless all hope is gone.

Sorry if it came across that way. As with any conversion it can, sometimes, go off on a tangent.:)

[my_wan]

Regardless of the different perspective here of what science is I do get an intense rush out of understanding principles of science. Especially comprehending new ideas that cement the big picture. We weed it out of the scientific process because it is an intensly powerful source of confirmation bias. This is a very very bad thing for truth so the presentation of science is done in a very dry manner. Believe me when I say this is NOT how the scientist involved generally feel about it. Science has an often very hostile peer review process that attempts to combat this bias also.

Something to realize is that essentially all world views has proponents that feel this rush about the truth of their world view. This includes 911 truthers, general conspiracy theorist, religion, politics, ESP proponents, all sorts of woo, and even mainstream scientist and researchers. The Einstein was wrong and etherist groups that get chased off mainstream science forums often intensly feel that they hold a peice of the ultimate truth. Listen to reformed 911 truthers. Many intensly felt that they were a select group who was privy to THE TRUTH.

Your question for me then becomes: Why does religion compete so well in the battle of world views? The answer is simple and many. (1) Religion has a much more pervasive social element. Following the religion of the region is as simple a understanding your peers points of view. (2) Religion doesn't require the academic discipline that is required for science regardless of how intensly a bible scholar persues confirmation bias. (3) Religion can and is tweeked in the minds of individual adherents so as not to conflict with other peripheral beliefs, wooish or otherwise. In fact they are often used synergistically to provide mutual confirmation bias. When is the last time you seen an actual bible quote on the sayings billboard outside a church? (4) Religion has a powerful historical element. Once upon a time it was the only game in town. Take away my knowledge of empirical facts and I would even find it compelling. People even within a given denomination would be shocked if they understood the level of historical distortions that take place even in a single generation, much less 2 or 3 thousand years.

The fact that you understand this emotional rush in terms of religion only makes you mainstream by social standards. The experience itself is common in every world view atheistic or not. The only common thread is a perception of what "truth" is. Ever notice how many times in the bible it says god is truth? Not created truth or defined truth but IS truth. Even those who would claim "truth" doesn't exist is proclaiming a "truth" of sorts. I had to drop my anti-philosophy philosophy at a very young age for similar reasons, though I still wasn't about to pick some inane unfalsifiable ontology and call it a philosophical "truth".

So to your question of how you get science to compete: You quit letting religion dumb down the science taught in schools and let the cards fall where they may. Of course religion will survive. The Flat Earth Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society) still had several thousand members as late as 2001. Our undying fascination with "truth" even if we have to construct it from a fantasy is an immensely powerful strength and intolerable weakness of us humans. Letting go of your ultimate "truth" fantasy is often far more difficult than your pet getting hit by a car.

[Jontg]

And boom de yada. When I think about things like every atom in every cell of my body being made out of ashes of stars, I have a boom de yada moment.

Hell yeah; those commercials are our generation's "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing." I actually have an idea for a story where that phrase becomes a revolutionary slogan, a la the tagline for the latest Rambo movie.

[MattC]

Perhaps the best science can do in this regard is the thrill of personal discovery - entirely through your own efforts, you've discovered something about the world you didn't know before.

While perhaps minor in comparison to the religious counter, I would wager that this thrill is far longer-lasting and arguably more significant.

~ Matt

[Kuko 4000]

Here's a thought Tapio, why not try this same exact OP in the science forums, without mentioning that it's a duplicate? I know many regularls over there don't look in here that often, would be interesting to see how / if the reactions and answers differ?

I hope this isn't against the forum rules. You can always blame me if you get caught :boxedin:

[Evolved Wookie]

I remember a friend telling me about an occassion when his son (4 or 5 at the time) raced downstairs and demanded to be taken to the nearby coast. When quizzed as to why, it became clear that he'd just emptied a full bottle of Ribena down the bath drain and wanted to see where it came out at the sea.

It's true that most kids are naturally adept at science; it's human nature to poke and prod and to try to find out what makes the machine go 'ping'. I'm not all together sure how to explain where this goes without invoking the evils of dogmatic indoctrination, but something, somewhere, seems to be very efficient at robbing them of this trait.

Bring back Meccano with intentionally faulty instructions!

[Tapio]

I'm beginning to become concerned that the OP has a skewed view of science.

Good (Finnish) morning! Boy, good stuff here...please, tell me more about your concerns.

It seems that my OP didn't quite make clear enough the fact that I, IN NO CIRCUMSTANCES BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE SHOULD (even if it could) BE THE FOUNDATION OF RELIGIOUS-LIKE EMOTIONAL EXPERIENCES.

The main question in the OP was a question giving nothing away of what I personally feel about the subject.

I think we've had enough conversation to agree on one thing. That science can not compete with religion in giving an emotional rush, because it's not even intended to do it. That, as rocketdodger stated earlier, comparing these two in such way would be like "comparing apples and oranges".

Fine.

What's disturbing is how it seems to me that so many scientists, without a fight, are ready to accept (or possibly don't believe in) a future where most young people will be herded by adults either into the masspsychosis of fundamentalist religion (in which the extreme and fanatic ingredients seem to be growing alarmingly), or blindguided by the greedy, immoral agents of massmedia deeper down the spiral of losing their identity and crumbling under external pressure dictating the norm, succumbing to various different unhealthy addictions.

This, of course, is an extreme vision. But at least in Finland, a vision that already has some valid research to back it up (interestingly, following the horrible massacre at one of our schools just a week ago, a special goup within the government has decided to do a large survey on youth violence and mental health in Finland. So there's more data to come...). Even if most of the young people would turn out fine, responsible and sensible adults, the imminent threat that a large minority living in what I described represents, can't be delt with too lightly.

You might be a hardened cynic as I gather bokonon is, and quite blandly, without emotion, think about this kind of future, just sigh oh well and go on with your daily routines. OR you can start thinking about, and testing alternatives.

I for one, believe that science is the best alternative yet.

[m_huber]

Science is really great. It is not by itself capable of solving all of the world's problems. Sorry.

With improved science education, we can eliminate a large number of the problems in the world. However, if someone has to choose between titrating an acid or taking some acid, the winner will be pretty predictable.

A possibly relevant article. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/321/5896/1605)

[westprog]

I have to disagree here. My understanding is that, compared to the scientifically inclined kids and teens, many religious kids and teens think (for one reason or another) that going to different religious meetings IS more emotionally rewarding or fulfilling than any of the examples you mention. By religious meetings I mean the unscrupulously and carefully planned events that are available for all ages, from kids Jesus Camps to Battlecrys to Benny Hinn type miracle healing spectacles, week in, week out, in real life or in TV. It's the combination of earthly ecstatic experiences with the amazingly powerful supernatural message of the personal God that wins the emotional rush contest, even against Led Zeppelin.

Of course, it has to be said, I don't have any data to back me up, this is all based on my personal experience, common sense, discussions with religious (and scientifically inclined) people and numerous different documentaries about the subject.

The difference is that while even the most anodyne and tedious rock concert is at least aiming at being * Zep * Reunion * Tour * One * Night * Only *, the vast, vast majority of religious observance is people sitting in rows falling asleep. Even when there's a good choir, and people are standing up clapping along, it's not that emotionally intense.

[westprog]

There's a place at one of our schools here--not sure if it's an elementary or middle school--called the Math and Science Lab. Inside are all sorts of working, hands-on experiments with scientific principles.

The moment I entered the place, I was giggly, eager, anticipatory, and above all, totally thrilled with each and every exhibit. I felt 10 years old, and didn't want to leave. Ever.

Science can do this.

Science is capable of stimulating the intellect. That's what it should be aiming at. Som people aren't interested in having their intellect stimulated, and they should be left alone.

What is not worthwhile is to try to get science stimulating the emotions, because even if it works on occasion - "Wow, that nebula is pretty" - generally it will lose out. There are plenty of other things that give a quick and easy, or deep and lasting emotional rush.

One of the things that budding scientists have to learn is emotional detachment. They can enjoy making copper sulphate crystals, but they shouldn't let their feelings affect their judgement.

[westprog]

The OP made me think of the passage in Richard Rhodes' book The Making of the Atomic Bomb where he describes Einstein's realization that his General Theory of Relativity explained previously unresolved anomalies in the orbit of Mercury. I don't have the book to hand so I'm paraphrasing. Einstein was so gobsmacked by this this realization, this confirmation of his unpublished theory, that he was in a daze for several days. (Sorry!) He was the only person alive who knew this wonderful thing, this fundamental truth about the universe we live in!

I think there's a disadvantage here - Einstein had, almost entirely alone, made one of the four or five fundamental human discoveries about the nature of the universe. While that's undoubtedly cool, it's not something available to everyone. Can we promise even the most talented young scientists that they will ever have an experience like that?

[westprog]

Science is really great. It is not by itself capable of solving all of the world's problems. Sorry.



Science cannot, for one thing, tell anyone how to live his life. It cannot provide a purpose.

[Tapio]

Science cannot, for one thing, tell anyone how to live his life. It cannot provide a purpose.

Yes, and while I think that's one of the most beautiful aspects of science, it's at the same time one of the main reasons for it to be so distant to the average youth.

The fragmented, chaotic and constantly contradictive manipulation of the young mind leaves most kids and young adults in a helpless state on inner conflict and depression.

Sadly, for many religion is the only alternative with compassion, joy, meaning and a healthy connection with others likeminded.

[AkuManiMani]

How can science compete with religion when it comes to giving an emotional rush?

It can, you just have to really love learning and seeking truth.

[lupus_in_fabula]

What's disturbing is how it seems to me that so many scientists, without a fight, are ready to accept (or possibly don't believe in) a future where most young people will be herded by adults either into the masspsychosis of fundamentalist religion (in which the extreme and fanatic ingredients seem to be growing alarmingly), or blindguided by the greedy, immoral agents of massmedia deeper down the spiral of losing their identity and crumbling under external pressure dictating the norm, succumbing to various different unhealthy addictions.

And yet it also seems that ever increasing access to information tend to diffuse dogmatic positions in the longer run. Sure, access also means more venues where young people can try out getting emotional highs in various ways – some extremely detrimental. But on the other hand, it can have a sobering effect in the longer run since trade offs are also being registered. Thus a form of self-awareness can grow, especially in the sense that people start to realize that no activity seems to be able to hold an emotional-factor for long. Sort of like a seeker starting to realize that the problem is not in their inability to find the Holy Grail, but in the quest itself.

This, of course, is an extreme vision. But at least in Finland, a vision that already has some valid research to back it up (interestingly, following the horrible massacre at one of our schools just a week ago, a special goup within the government has decided to do a large survey on youth violence and mental health in Finland. So there's more data to come...). Even if most of the young people would turn out fine, responsible and sensible adults, the imminent threat that a large minority living in what I described represents, can't be delt with too lightly.

I’m not sure, but sometimes what you resist will persist as long as you keep on resisting. Does it mean we should let kids run amok and hope they will learn a lesson when they hit rock bottom? Surely not, but there’s a fine line between panicking and dealing with an issue in a constructive way: Science can play a role here, precisely because knowledge gained through it tends to be accurate and disengaged rather than overly moralizing (which kids tend to spot immediately). So, for instance, talking about drugs should be done in a way that really answers what kids want to hear, not necessarily what over-protective parents want them to hear.

Somehow young people must be encouraged to take part in these investigations about themselves since they will do it anyway on their own. The very least adults can do is to inform themselves, so that they can show where reliable information is found should there be a need to (i.e. leading by example).

[quarky]

synthesizing and ingesting certain chemicals should do the trick.

[ferd burfle]

I think there's a disadvantage here - Einstein had, almost entirely alone, made one of the four or five fundamental human discoveries about the nature of the universe. While that's undoubtedly cool, it's not something available to everyone. Can we promise even the most talented young scientists that they will ever have an experience like that?

Fair and good point--obviously an unique moment experienced by an exceptional individual. But I got a vicarious thrill just reading about it and trying to imagine what it would be like to have that experience, far more moving than anything I remember from my religious upbringing.

Which, of course, may say more about the quality of preaching in my old church than anything else. :D

Cheers,

Ferd

[Blackadder]

Welcome Tapio. Your English is quite good.

Here in Holland I would claim (organized) Religion is almost dead among the youth. Does that make them scientific wunderkids? NOT at all. Woo is Alive and Kicking. So are

Sex
Drugs and
Rock & Roll

Enter a school full of teenagers. How many are thinking about religion? very few. Religion is for old people, who are about to die and wonder (fear) what lies beyond dead. If you are 16 you think you will never die.

How many are busy with science? A few, but still not many. Science is incredibly boring (they think)

How many are busy with Fashion, Music, Drugs, Movies, and more and more computer Games? Almost all of them. And most of these activities are geared towards the question: "How do I get into Her Panties?" Or " How do I make sure others like me?"

younger kids of course are not yet involved in the game of sex, but they are busy with toys, school, sports, tv and books

[I Ratant]

Science cannot, for one thing, tell anyone how to live his life. It cannot provide a purpose.
.
Life has no "purpose".
It's just something that happened, and by some miracle was able to increase and multiply into the billions of forms it has today.
Humans can give their lives a purpose "higher" than eat, sleep, procreate, but usually that takes some manner of education.
My religious experience was mainly devoted to following the rules. No ectasys ever, just a couple of "that felt good" moments.
Engineering has it all over that for self-fulfillment!

[westprog]

.
Life has no "purpose".

Humans can give their lives a purpose "higher" than eat, sleep, procreate, but usually that takes some manner of education.

I don't agree. There have been millions of totally uneducated human beings who've managed to find a purpose in their lives. Purpose is specifically not something that requires an education.

[Tapio]

How many are busy with Fashion, Music, Drugs, Movies, and more and more computer Games? Almost all of them. And most of these activities are geared towards the question: "How do I get into Her Panties?" Or " How do I make sure others like me?"

Thank you for yhe compliment on my English. I'm never quite satisfied with the result, but believe me when I tell you that I go through great lengths not to "rite laik jor basik Finn" (though that would be a lot more fun to you guys, I suspect :p).

Your quote is exactly the way it is in most Finnish schools as well. That's one of my points. This oversexualized, massmedia driven flash of a "culture" will leave many empty shells of human beings in it's wake. Maybe (hopefully) afterwards most of them will indeed find the ride has taken them to the glittering shores of Science, and from there on live a full life of increasing self-knowledge and true expanding of the consciousness through rigorous study and dialogue with each other.

[Molinaro]

Imaginary stuff is only emotional if you are delusional.

I find reality and an understanding of reality to be far more worthy of my emotional responses.

[godless dave]

Sadly, for many religion is the only alternative with compassion, joy, meaning and a healthy connection with others likeminded.

The only alternative? Friends and family won't do it? How about group activities like sports, volunteering, music, camping, and hobbies?

[I Ratant]

I don't agree. There have been millions of totally uneducated human beings who've managed to find a purpose in their lives. Purpose is specifically not something that requires an education.
.
Two different connotations of the word "purpose".
Life overall, bug to dinosaur, exists just to make more bugs and dinosaurs.
If it fails, it doesn't care.
Humans can give their -life- a purpose beyond that, but life, animated autonomous activity, has no interest, can't have any interest in what people wish to do and how they do it, it's merely a process that works for making more life.

[Tapio]

The only alternative? Friends and family won't do it? How about group activities like sports, volunteering, music, camping, and hobbies?

Sure, these are all good alternatives to live a satisfactory social life.

Sports: training to be the Ultimate Fighting Champion
Volunteering: smuggling drugs
Music: suicidal nationalist Black Metal
Camping: "never too late to start poaching"
Hobbies: creating effective computer viruses to abuse people's privacy

:D

No, really, all the options you mentioned truly are good alternatives to religion for the kids satisfied by living a life of moderate, healthy experiences in a safe social network.

Of course none of the options mentioned can quite deliver the same kind of ecstacy you get from a good ol' dip in the bloody pool your personal Saviour has bled just for you, so that you could live cleansed forever by His side, in His grace. Eh?

[m_huber]

Your quote is exactly the way it is in most Finnish schools as well. That's one of my points. This oversexualized, massmedia driven flash of a "culture" will leave many empty shells of human beings in it's wake. Maybe (hopefully) afterwards most of them will indeed find the ride has taken them to the glittering shores of Science, and from there on live a full life of increasing self-knowledge and true expanding of the consciousness through rigorous study and dialogue with each other.

Let's think about the number of people in the world currently contributing to the scientific community. In 1995, there were 542,500 scientists (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9524&page=42) in the US alone. Compare this to 1776. When there were (maybe) a couple dozen. The overall education of the world is greater now than it has ever been in the past. This is due to improvements in communication. The fact that lots of people decide to do things besides science is ok. There are other rewarding paths in life.

Consider, too, how many current scientists were concerned with anything but science during their primary school. Some go through school, then either get a job, or do service in the military, or go to college for something non-scientific, and then later gain an interest in some scientific venture.

I believe your concern about the youth of the world is a bit overstated. There have always been distractions for the youth of the world. There always will be. Science is not going to fix "human nature." When hormones run wild and some strapping young lad is interested in the blonde two rows over, no lecture on science is going to distract him. But when he gets older, he may see the value.

You may also be confusing science and logic. You seem to be advocating a logical approach to the world. While science uses logic, it does not embody all logic. Anybody can use logic to reach an end. Scientists use logic to answer questions about the physical universe. You seem to be advocating making kids smarter so that they don't make stupid mistakes. What you fail to realize is that stupid mistakes make kids smarter.

Leave people to their own means, and they will soon discover what is hollow and what is not. I grew up in a religious family in a religious culture. I have escaped within the last 2 years. I am not an "empty shell of a human being." That is really a bleak outlook. The logical errors that I made, I learned from. Now I can spot woo a mile away.

As a final note here, I heard almost the exact same concern when I was heavily involved in religion. "The media is evil" "There is too much sex in the world." "How will we save the youth of the world." These are religious concerns. Be a skeptic. Don't give in to doomsday thinking.

EDIT: Adding after your last post. Religious feelings aren't necessarily bad, so long as you eventually grow up.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Of course none of the options mentioned can quite deliver the same kind of ecstacy you get from a good ol' dip in the bloody pool your personal Saviour has bled just for you, so that you could live cleansed forever by His side, in His grace. Eh?

Just a quick question: Are you relating to your own experience now, or do you feel your assertion is applicable in general? You seem to forget that the majority of the population do not experience such ecstasy via religious practise; it’s only a minority who do, even from a population that recognizes themselves as believers.

[Tapio]

Just a quick question: Are you relating to your own experience now, or do you feel your assertion is applicable in general? You seem to forget that the majority of the population do not experience such ecstasy via religious practise; it’s only a minority who do, even from a population that recognizes themselves as believers.

Heh, I've been there. And I know thousands of others who've shared what I described. AND I know many who use that kind of experiences as the basis of their Holy War (inside themselves as well as out on the streets).

Today, for me that would be honestly impossible. Of course, the capability of self suggestion in us is immense, so I can somehow "remember" the feeling.

[westprog]

I remember a friend telling me about an occassion when his son (4 or 5 at the time) raced downstairs and demanded to be taken to the nearby coast. When quizzed as to why, it became clear that he'd just emptied a full bottle of Ribena down the bath drain and wanted to see where it came out at the sea.

It's true that most kids are naturally adept at science; it's human nature to poke and prod and to try to find out what makes the machine go 'ping'. I'm not all together sure how to explain where this goes without invoking the evils of dogmatic indoctrination, but something, somewhere, seems to be very efficient at robbing them of this trait.


Maybe it has to do with the reactions of most parents when the Ribena goes down the plughole.

[westprog]

Imaginary stuff is only emotional if you are delusional.

I find reality and an understanding of reality to be far more worthy of my emotional responses.

Those delusional novel-readers, eh?