[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul, I would not object to the idea that honesty should be the core motive for science. Everyone who ever watched the early versions of Star Trek knows about the contrast between the alien who thinks logically using data and evidence and his human counterpart played out by Captain Emotional.

Technosoul, that is all very interesting but you are aware I hope that Star Trek was a work of fiction? The writers made the stories turn out as they did because they thought that it would appeal to the audience. Forming conclusions about reality based on such a source exhibits a very weak mind.

However is the honesty of science ever perverted if the purpose of it has the partisan objective to prove that religions are false? Would that re-direct science away from finding truisms in nature via concentrating on the faults of religion? Should not the outer layer of the onion be made of the same stuff as is the core of the onion?

Of course there are dishonest people in science. Of course there are people with good intentions but have fooled themselves in science. They are everywhere.

Science is not out to find fault with supernatural religion. If you examine the historical record you will find that it has been the opposite. That the supernatural religious have tried to suppress and distort science. They are doing it right now with evolution. Those that require Genesis to be factual cannot allow people to think that humans are the product of an evolutionary process. To some extent they are doing it with cosmology. The historical account of the bible would only allow the earth to be on the order of 10,000 years old. This is in conflict with the result of cosmology that indicates 13.5 billion years. They have tried it with physics claiming that radioactive decay is not as is found in science. With geologic evidence, and fossil evidence, you name it they have tried it. These people would like nothing better than to throw us back into the dark ages. The vast majority of scientists could give a shit what supernatural theists think, it is when they start telling scientists what to think because scientists are discovering reality that conflicts with their take on reality is when the fun begins.

As for the onion, is that a scallion or a Vidalia onion?

If science is to be honest to the core, how could it just overlook the felt experience as being as much of a reality as would be the physical body or other visable evidence?

Technosoul, what makes you think that science is ignoring the three pound universe? Why don't you do your homework and research what science is learning about our minds.

Surely science must agree that emotions such as fear and anger would play a role in animal evolution relative to the needs for survival? The reactions to stress via those emtional communicaitons. I doubt if animals could have evolved by doing test tube studies in their white mouse labortory, it had to include the systems of the felt experience.

I am sure this makes perfect sense to you but I have no idea what you are getting at.

A debate is in effect a kind of evolutionary system where one idea attempts to rise above another idea as the one most fit to survive the tests of time - aka peer opinions. If a emotional perpective should win out over a logical perspective then by the law of evoution it gets to lead the wolf pack.

And exactly what would an emotional explanation look like? It rains because it makes the clouds feel relieved? I believe that mankind has already been there and done that.

Starboy