Edward Wilson: Is Humanity Suicidal?

[Kekerusey]

This may not be the most appropriate place but it was all I could find, sorry

This is from a site called Ecological Buddhism and whilst I am not in the slightest bit religious (anyone who know me at all knows I'm fairly antagonistic towards religions in general) it seems to me this guy's message should be read:

[Edward Wilson: Is Humanity Suicidal?]
Imagine that on an icy moon of Jupiter - say Ganymede - the space station of an alien civilization is concealed. For millions of years its scientists have closely watched the earth. Because their law prevents settlement on a living planet, they have tracked the surface by means of satellites equipped with sophisticated sensors, mapping the spread of large assemblages of organisms, from forests, grasslands and tundras to coral reefs and the vast planktonic meadows of the sea. They have recorded millennial cycles in the climate, interrupted by the advance and retreat of glaciers and scattershot volcanic eruptions.

The watchers have been waiting for what might be called the Moment. When it comes, occupying only a few centuries and thus a mere tick in geological time, the forests shrink back to less than half their original cover. Atmospheric carbon dioxide rises to the highest level in 100,000 years. The ozone layer of the stratosphere thins, and holes open at the poles. Plumes of nitrous oxide and other toxins rise from fires in South America and Africa, collect in the upper troposphere and drift eastward across the oceans. At night the land surface brightens with millions of pinpoints of light, which coalesce into blazing swaths across Europe, Japan and eastern North America. A semi-circle of fire spreads from gas flares around the Persian Gulf.

It was all but inevitable, the watchers might tell us if we met them, that from the great diversity of large animals, one species or another would eventually gain intelligent control of Earth. That role has fallen to Homo sapiens, a primate risen in Africa from a lineage that split away from the chimpanzee line five to eight million years ago. Unlike any creature that lived before, we have become a geophysical force, swiftly changing the atmosphere and climate as well as the composition of the world's fauna and flora. Now in the midst of a population explosion, the human species has doubled to 5.5 billion during the past 50 years. It is scheduled to double again in the next 50 years. No other single species in evolutionary history has even remotely approached the sheer mass in protoplasm generated by humanity.

[READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE]

Kinda fits with my idea that we are simultaneously the best (potentially) and worst (more like actually) thing to ever hit this planet ... arguably if we ever get into space (proper I mean, colonising other planets) it'll be worth it although it's scary that we might just go around trashing everywhere else but as it stands it looks quite likely we'll wipe ourselves out.

Keke

Keke

[Tìtstewan]

I hope I understood the text correcly...
In view of the fact that on this planet live enough idiots who hold the "wrong" positions, I consider it probable that we can extinguish ourself.

For planetary colonization:
As long as humanity is ticking like now I hope very much that they will never reach another planet.

[Seze Mune]

I guess I don't see human extinction as a bad probability. It would be only the next one in a continuing series of near mass extinctions we've had on this planet. 

It's like a reset button: if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.  (My only question is, who is the 'you' in that sentence?  My vote is for The Force, whatever that really is. 'God' is a human concept and by that definition alone most certainly doesn't describe the True Reality of What Is)

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

I do believe that humanity will wipe itself out eventually, and our demise will just provide the seeds for the next wave of life on the lanet. This will continue until the sun gets too hot to sustain life as we know it here.

I would worry less about dictatirs and atomic bombs, and worry more about how quickly we are multiplying. Our exponential population growth will ultimately result in an exponential die-off, and the results will not look pretty....

All this said, I DO believe there is a God, and that everything is here as we know it, for a reason. Based on Biblical prophecy (which I believe), the earth will be replaced at a future date with a 'better' earth. However, this is not a mandate to trash the existing earth, as some believe it is. The command to be good stewards of the earth is also Biblical.

[Seze Mune]

I do believe that humanity will wipe itself out eventually, and our demise will just provide the seeds for the next wave of life on the lanet. This will continue until the sun gets too hot to sustain life as we know it here.

I would worry less about dictatirs and atomic bombs, and worry more about how quickly we are multiplying. Our exponential population growth will ultimately result in an exponential die-off, and the results will not look pretty....

All this said, I DO believe there is a God, and that everything is here as we know it, for a reason. Based on Biblical prophecy (which I believe), the earth will be replaced at a future date with a 'better' earth. However, this is not a mandate to trash the existing earth, as some believe it is. The command to be good stewards of the earth is also Biblical.

Being a good steward of all things is Biblical, I think.  I think the key to survival is balance and that is done instinctively in the case of animals.  Humans are not good at instinctive balance.  And what male or female would consider it their Biblical mandate to contribute to good stewardship of the Earth by neutering themselves?  When that has been done before in the name of eugenics it was considered inhumane. 

I sometimes wonder about this distinction.  Is humane what we are when we overpopulate the planet and consume its resources and cause other species to go extinct?  Or in other words, what's the difference between being humane and being human? Rhetorical question. 

[Kekerusey]

Being a good steward of all things is Biblical, I think. 

Not in the slightest ... it's just rational. To claim that x is good about <name your religious poison> is just cherry-picking i.e. promoting those things you see as good about your chosen belief system whilst playing down those that are bad. All religions do that, Christianity is no exception, and as the UB40 song says, "There ain't no Heaven and there ain't no Hell ... except the one we're in and we know too well. Take the blinkers off your eyes, the power's in your hands ... stop waiting for your ticket to the promised land"

I agree we're probably a dead-end species but I firmly believe there's a chance ... if we play it right, even if we make this planet effectively uninhabitable, if we can make it out into space (a Lunar colony, a Mars colony, the moons of Jupiter and Saturn and eventually maybe generation ships to the stars) we can secure our own future. Education and science are the answer, ignorance (and as far as I'm concerned that's all religions are, ignorance masquerading as wisdom) is not. Education and science will let us reach for the stars and whilst science is amoral (not immoral) and provides with the most powerful tools to do harm it equally provides us with the most powerful tools to do good.

Wilson (and others, others including Jim Cameron) are giving us all a warning ... hopefully enough of us will heed that warning and do something about it.

Keke

[Seze Mune]

Being a good steward of all things is Biblical, I think.

Not in the slightest ... it's just rational. To claim that x is good about <name your religious poison> is just cherry-picking i.e. promoting those things you see as good about your chosen belief system whilst playing down those that are bad. All religions do that, Christianity is no exception, and as the UB40 song says, "There ain't no Heaven and there ain't no Hell ... except the one we're in and we know too well. Take the blinkers off your eyes, the power's in your hands ... stop waiting for your ticket to the promised land"

I have a feeling we are miscommunicating.  I agree that it's just rational. You might also agree that there are some lucid and rational ideas in the Bible; this may just be one time where your idea of rationality and Biblical injunctions intersect. One does not obliterate the other.

Reading your post, I get the feeling that you are radically if not militantly anti-organized religion.  Just be cautious that in your fervor you don't make that into your own brand of religion for which you need converts. The need to be so fervent makes me wonder why you give it so much power and focus in your life.  I have never subscribed to any particular religion and was never raised in any.  I don't believe in them myself.  But my attitude is mostly 'meh'.  It gives me energy to spend elsewhere.

Now politics, on the other hand.....don't get me started!  

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

The commands to be good stewards of the earth and its living things is clearly communicated in the Bible, not obfuscated at all.

I need to dwell for a moment on the definition of 'religion' and 'religious' as described in the previous post. Seze Mune has the definition  of 'religion' correct, and most people do not. By the definition, the animl rights and extreme environmentalists are 'religious'. It is high time the courts recognize their own definition of 'religion' as it applies to rights of extremist groups to operate 'in extremeism', and make them follow the same standards as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus (and other groups that we commonly think of as 'religious') adhere to.

Mankind, when left to its own, will not rise to its highest and best as some thinkers and philosophers think. History shows that mankind will always sink to its basest and most destructive level, with a few cases of  temporary 'exception'. It is a dynamic outworking of our sin nature, as well as the second law of thermodynamics. (I don't want to get preachy here, but the only way out is to turn to God. He has planned a way out of this mess we are currently in. Outside of this plan, we are indeed doomed.)

I will not live long enough to see if mankind can indeed work its ways out of its problems. Instead, I hope that my life will be over before it all implodes. In the meantime, I am taking reasonable steps (including being single/childless by choice) to minimize my contribution to the problem.

[Seze Mune]

I will not live long enough to see if mankind can indeed work its ways out of its problems. Instead, I hope that my life will be over before it all implodes. In the meantime, I am taking reasonable steps (including being single/childless by choice) to minimize my contribution to the problem.

Ma 'Eylan, you are the ONLY person I've ever known who made this choice out of an intent to be a responsible steward of the earth.  I tip my hat to you.

Despite my post above about not minding human extinction, I don't think that is what will happen.  I believe there will be those who survive who display the 'next generation' of human consciousness.  I would expect them to be more like the Na'vi in the sense that they will be conscious of their interrelatedness to all things on earth in a way the vast majority of us cannot comprehend.  It will be an evolution of consciousness and humanity will become something far different from what we know today.  Just my opinion and I won't be around to see it anyway.   

[`Eylan Ayfalulukanä]

Unfirtunately, I think it will be the other way around-- the survivors will be more like The RDA, or the Dothraki. They will win by being the strongest, not having the best consciousness. Most (but not all) of us who do care will be wiped out early on, when the excrement hits the air impeller.

BTW, my choice to be single is more to do with me not really caring to have a soulmate or children, than it is about caring for the earth (which is still important to me, though). I am perfectly happy being single, and generally do my best work as a loner. I do have many friends, though, and that includes the people in this community. (And of course, the animals I work with are the best friends of all!)

[Clarke]

I think the key to survival is balance and that is done instinctively in the case of animals.

No animal has an "instinct" for balance. All animals on the planet are programmed to multiply as much as possible, with no regard for long-term consequences.

There's only one difference between them and us, and it's not what we've been programmed to do. It's how we go about doing it - we are better at feeding ourselves, and have, through our intrinsic abilities, become the apex predator in almost all ecosystems we inhabit. The combination of the two makes our viable population limit orders of magnitude higher than all other similarly sized animals, hence the problem.

[Seze Mune]

I think the key to survival is balance and that is done instinctively in the case of animals.

No animal has an "instinct" for balance. All animals on the planet are programmed to multiply as much as possible, with no regard for long-term consequences.

There's only one difference between them and us, and it's not what we've been programmed to do. It's how we go about doing it - we are better at feeding ourselves, and have, through our intrinsic abilities, become the apex predator in almost all ecosystems we inhabit. The combination of the two makes our viable population limit orders of magnitude higher than all other similarly sized animals, hence the problem.

Science is another form of religion.

[Na'vin Nos'feratxu]

Science is a method of understanding things, that don't need to be understood in order to exist.

Science, is also the creation or mutilation of matter that needs no change.

I guess in my opinion, science is indeed interesting, but it is unnecessary.
Yes, science has made cures for illnesses, science has created technologies for our lives to be better.

But... Does it really cure illness? Since most illnesses are bacterial or viral, the things in our world adapt and change to become stronger and more resilient.
Technology makes things easier, but the masses that use most technology simply do not understand it, nor will they know what to do, should that technology disappear.

In a way, science is actually destroying us.

This of course, in the scientific world is called my "theory."

[Kekerusey]

I have a feeling we are miscommunicating.  I agree that it's just rational. You might also agree that there are some lucid and rational ideas in the Bible; this may just be one time where your idea of rationality and Biblical injunctions intersect. One does not obliterate the other.

If we're talking about the core claims then (son of god, word made flesh, heaven hell, mystical mumbo jumbo etc.) then no I don't accept a single word of it ... I do, however accept that whilst the bible constitutes anything but history it basically has historical value (primarily in that it cites historic events that can be corroborated elsewhere).

Reading your post, I get the feeling that you are radically if not militantly anti-organized religion.  Just be cautious that in your fervor you don't make that into your own brand of religion for which you need converts. The need to be so fervent makes me wonder why you give it so much power and focus in your life.  I have never subscribed to any particular religion and was never raised in any.  I don't believe in them myself.  But my attitude is mostly 'meh'.  It gives me energy to spend elsewhere.

Oh I am (extremely anti-religion) but here's the thing ... when two strongly views are strongly expressed the truth does not have to lie in the middle, it is entirely possible for one argument to be utterly wrong and given that science (and only science) is the only philosophy that has a shred of validatable supporting evidence, with math the only thing ever to have to have truly advanced our knowledge and society, I know exactly where my views lie.

Now politics, on the other hand.....don't get me started!

I was going to answer this but I think it could make a good discussion thread all it's own ... feel free to join in

Coming back to my original point ... religious or not I think this guy is giving us a clear warning and I think we should heed it.

Keke

[Seze Mune]

I have a feeling we are miscommunicating.  I agree that it's just rational. You might also agree that there are some lucid and rational ideas in the Bible; this may just be one time where your idea of rationality and Biblical injunctions intersect. One does not obliterate the other.

If we're talking about the core claims then (son of god, word made flesh, heaven hell, mystical mumbo jumbo etc.) then no I don't accept a single word of it ... I do, however accept that whilst the bible constitutes anything but history it basically has historical value (primarily in that it cites historic events that can be corroborated elsewhere).

Not what I was talking about. We are miscommunicating, at least here.

Reading your post, I get the feeling that you are radically if not militantly anti-organized religion.  Just be cautious that in your fervor you don't make that into your own brand of religion for which you need converts. The need to be so fervent makes me wonder why you give it so much power and focus in your life.  I have never subscribed to any particular religion and was never raised in any.  I don't believe in them myself.  But my attitude is mostly 'meh'.  It gives me energy to spend elsewhere.

Oh I am (extremely anti-religion) but here's the thing ... when two strongly views are strongly expressed the truth does not have to lie in the middle, it is entirely possible for one argument to be utterly wrong and given that science (and only science) is the only philosophy that has a shred of validatable supporting evidence, with math the only thing ever to have to have truly advanced our knowledge and society, I know exactly where my views lie.

Math has advanced our knowledge and society? Have you looked around lately? Go back to your original post, and you can see that you contradicted yourself.  We are playing with different toys now, thanks to math.  But as a species where is the evidence to support your belief that we have advanced in any social aspect?  One could probably find more evidence that we've regressed.  Math = progress, is flawed logic.  And the truth is, according to your OP, you actually agree that it's NOT proven to support progress.

It seems to me you've chosen your God, and dressed it in scientific clothing.  If you're really anti-religion then never make ANYTHING your God, math and science included. Have you ever been to a scientific conference? Those people fight each other like jealous little feudal lords. So much for cohesion in the sciences.  That Emperor is wearing no clothes.

Now politics, on the other hand.....don't get me started!

I was going to answer this but I think it could make a good discussion thread all it's own ... feel free to join in

Coming back to my original point ... religious or not I think this guy is giving us a clear warning and I think we should heed it.

Keke

Thanks for the invitation.  Gonna pass for now.    I see no reason to look any more dewy-eyed towards science than I do toward religion.  The species is still the same, regardless.  The species-wide change which is needed will come from neither of those directions. And no, I don't think Aliens will save us either. (No kidding, I actually know people who are convinced that's the answer    )

[Clarke]

Science is another form of religion.

(See my explanation of why you're talking nonsense further down the page.)

But... Does it really cure illness? Since most illnesses are bacterial or viral, the things in our world adapt and change to become stronger and more resilient.

Smallpox didn't.

Technology makes things easier, but the masses that use most technology simply do not understand it, nor will they know what to do, should that technology disappear.

...And? Why would that mean that its a bad thing?

This of course, in the scientific world is called my "theory." hypothesis.

Fixed that for you.

Math has advanced our knowledge and society? Have you looked around lately?

Society is completely and utterly alien, thanks to math. "In the future, there will be a superconnected global network of billions of adding machines, each one of which has more power than all pre-1901 adding machines put together." These machines will be used to draw completely imaginary worlds inhabited by aliens by pretending the whole thing is made out of lots and lots of numbers.

And do you know what the weirdest thing about that is? The whole process is considered perfectly normal! 

But as a species where is the evidence to support your belief that we have advanced in any social aspect?

I hope I don't have to explain the significance of what you're looking at.  

Religion involves believing things unquestioningly, and defending them in the face of all opposition, regardless of correctness or even consistency. (Both Catholicism and Islam have logical problems in their respective myths.) There is only one thing in science that cannot ever be questioned - reality itself. No belief gets a pass to disregard reality, and no author gets to say, "It is this way!" without data to back him up.

It seems to me you've chosen your God, and dressed it in scientific clothing.  If you're really anti-religion then never make ANYTHING your God, math and science included. Have you ever been to a scientific conference? Those people fight each other like jealous little feudal lords. So much for cohesion in the sciences.  That Emperor is wearing no clothes.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day."

When they do, the scientists fight over the little details, the dotted Is and crossed Ts, because anything else would be so ridiculous that they'd be facing a dozen experimental reports to the contrary before they'd even finished the sentence and closed their mouths.

Thanks for the invitation.  Gonna pass for now.    I see no reason to look any more dewy-eyed towards science than I do toward religion.  The species is still the same, regardless.  The species-wide change which is needed will come from neither of those directions. And no, I don't think Aliens will save us either. (No kidding, I actually know people who are convinced that's the answer   )

I am personally of the opinion that we will save ourselves by aliens.
...That is, we will save ourselves by becoming greater, as we have throughout history. Unfortunately, by the time we actually fix the problem, we will be quite alien to modern sensibilities. (As we have become alien to past sensibilities.)


Also, did I ever tell you that I find the phrase "Oel ngati kameie" very superficial and misleading?  

[Seze Mune]

If science weren't merely your religion, it really wouldn't have to be defended so vigorously by you.  You have no one to convince but yourself.

Your point about aliens is an echo of my earlier point about what needs to evolve.

If you find oel ngati kameie superficial, I'm sure you would find namaste the same.  Since you are the creator of the meaning for yourself, then that is where the superficiality lies.   In either case, thank you for the smile I got out of that.  And have a good day.  

[Na'vin Nos'feratxu]

But... Does it really cure illness? Since most illnesses are bacterial or viral, the things in our world adapt and change to become stronger and more resilient.

Smallpox didn't.

What's your point? A single virus derived from Variola only infected humans, which made it easier for eradication.
My point, was that there are many kinds of viral and bacterial agents that simply cannot be eradicated. Because they adapt to our vaccines, so they become stronger, which as the adverse effect we are failing to fix.

Technology makes things easier, but the masses that use most technology simply do not understand it, nor will they know what to do, should that technology disappear.

...And? Why would that mean that its a bad thing?

Why would that mean that it's a bad thing you ask? Alrighty, lemme explain something to ya.
I'll use a few known countries as an example. The USA, the UK, Brazil, Germany and several more, Have many large cities filled with millions of people. Right?  With that in mind, how many of them drive a car? How many go to the grocery store? How many rent or buy an apartment or house? How many of them work jobs the revolve around todays current technology such as computers, paper work, numbers/money/stocks the list goes on...  
Alright, now for a moment, imagine all the millions of people that live in such a confined area known as todays cities.  What happens when the electricity fails, what happens when the entire techno world fails?
A storm rolls in, or an earthquake. Something that knocks out all communication and power.
Will everyone in the city know how to servive without a grocery store? Gasoline? Electricity? What about water? Food?
Here's my point in my oh so over simplified example...  Society relies too much on todays technology. If technology fails, then in most cases no one knows how to survive.

This of course, in the scientific world is called my "theory." hypothesis.

Fixed that for you.

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work.
So in layman's terms, this is my "Theory" on todays modern Science.
Didn't need fixing, Thank you

Also, did I ever tell you that I find the phrase "Oel ngati kameie" very superficial and misleading?  

So...Lemme get this straight.  You're worried about the appearance of the phrase "Oel ngati kameie?"
I am genuinely interested in how that phrase is considered misleading. You have my rapt attention with why you think so.

However I must give you my understanding of the phrase before I learn yours...
Oel ngati kameie of course means: I see you.
We all know, thanks to it being defined in the movie, that "I see you" means that "I see into you" or rather, who you are. A phrase of recognition.
Simply by our standards as a salute. The salute (commonly used in the military) is a subtle action of "showing ones face" to someone he/she respects.
The salute simulates and is derived from in medieval times when jousting competitors met on the field. They commonly raised their helmet shrouds to expose their face.
Hence the action of Salute, which looks like you are pulling up your Helmet shroud to expose your face.

Long story short, Oel ngati kameie is relatively the same. The Na'vi also have a hand gesture to coincide with the phrase.

[Kekerusey]

Math has advanced our knowledge and society? Have you looked around lately? Go back to your original post, and you can see that you contradicted yourself.  We are playing with different toys now, thanks to math.  But as a species where is the evidence to support your belief that we have advanced in any social aspect?  One could probably find more evidence that we've regressed.  Math = progress, is flawed logic.  And the truth is, according to your OP, you actually agree that it's NOT proven to support progress.

I'm sorry but my original post never argued that ... Edward Wilson may have done so but I did not.

That said I accept that measurement of social progress is entirely subjective therefore I cannot claim that science or math have (in any empirical sense) resulted in social "progress". What I can say is that the general mores of a society tend to be reflected in the laws of a given democratic group and that, in general, we have many, many more laws that reflect human rights than any past society has done so society has changed over time. If you want to you can claim that math & science have had no hand in that but you'd be wrong in my opinion because TV, the internet and other forms of media have made us vastly more aware of the happenings of the wider world around us and where governments could prosecute wars and carry out atrocities of various sorts the world over they no longer can with alacrity. Not without notice, without comment or complaint ... and that is largely thanks to media coverage and the internet all of which required science to develop and math is inherently a part of that science. Math changes the world we live in.

It seems to me you've chosen your God, and dressed it in scientific clothing.  If you're really anti-religion then never make ANYTHING your God, math and science included. Have you ever been to a scientific conference? Those people fight each other like jealous little feudal lords. So much for cohesion in the sciences.  That Emperor is wearing no clothes.

That individual scientists and/or groups fight each other is neither here nor there ... such people are human and humans are all driven by their own petty interests. When I refer to science I refer to it as a global philosophical endeavour and not as this group or that group and how such groups rail against each other to prove each other right or wrong or be first past the post for a specific discovery.

The strength of science is scepticism, doubt, challenge and the absence of utter surety ... science is not absolute but religious beliefs, for the most part, are. Science tends to change in the face of new evidence; religions have to be dragged kicking and screaming to meet current technological and social change. How long have most "Western" societies tended to accept that homosexuality is OK, a matter of personal choice, no danger to anyone and so on? Do the majority of religions accept it? No ... because their belief systems do not allow them to be tolerant of what is viewed as abnormal behaviour (and that despite all the evidence that being gay is something you tend to be born as and not some kind of life-style choice). Indeed it has been said that individuals not only hold their religious beliefs in the absence of evidence but in many cases in spite of the evidence.

I'm not for one moment saying there haven't been good religious people or even that good science and math hasn't been carried out by people of varying religious beliefs, even within religious establishments, but generally speaking religious organisations are resistant to change. Change, especially progressive social change and good education, are not in the interests of religions because religions rely on ignorance whilst education tends to dispel it. If you think I'm wrong take a good look at what we perceive to be the lesser educated areas of the world and compare them (in terms of religious adherence) to more educated climes. America might, on the face of it, appear to be an exception but let's be brutally honest here ... there's an awful lot of Americans that are woefully ignorant and poorly educated and, last I heard, something like 50% of Americans believed in a literal creation as told in Genesis.

Thanks for the invitation.  Gonna pass for now.    I see no reason to look any more dewy-eyed towards science than I do toward religion.  The species is still the same, regardless.  The species-wide change which is needed will come from neither of those directions. And no, I don't think Aliens will save us either. (No kidding, I actually know people who are convinced that's the answer    )

Although I'd genuinely like to believe there is life elsewhere the only known life in the universe is here, on Earth and personally I think the UFO crowd are just as wrong as the religious one.

IMO science is the probably now the only thing that can save our collective butts, that is to say science and people wielding it in a fashion that will do that ... I've heard rumours that some group has created an ozone replenishing machine and if so, since the ozone layer is being depleted exposing us to more harmful solar radiation, I can only assume that is a good thing. I'm sure that with time and effort I could come up with thousands of positive things people are doing with science to help us and our planet ... likewise I could probably do the opposite. Science, provides the tools to do equally good or bad so it's actually people that will do the saving (which is where good education comes in) but that doesn't devalue science ... religions on the other hand will do what they usually do (pray probably) which amounts to nothing in any real sense.

Coming back to your central claim, the science I adhere to bears none of the accepted trappings of religious belief ... no non-demonstrable deity or deities, no necessity of prayer/worship/ceremony, no places of worship, no holy books or scriptures, no religious authorities, no acceptance of the miraculous, no belief in an afterlife, no holy wars and so on. If something came along that established facts better I would ditch science in an instant, however the simple fact is that if science and the major scientific theories did get abandoned whatever followed them in a reasoning society (and I'd bet good money on this) would be similar to what was before. Why? Because science works, because we have too much evidence that those major theories actually do explain things we know & predict further things we previously didn't.

You claim that I have chosen my god in science; you could argue that you put your faith in a god, I put mine in science and that I accept is true ... the difference is that science can be shown to work, god/gods cannot. So no, I am not "dewy eyed" as you so sneeringly refer to my stance, I am an adherent based on the simple fact that science works and religion does not ... I'll retract that last if you can demonstrate to me one thing that religion (and religion alone) has actually explained (by which I mean fully & completely). You know you can't do it and so do I!

Why do I know that science works? Because the bridges stay up!

Keke

[Kekerusey]

If science weren't merely your religion, it really wouldn't have to be defended so vigorously by you.  You have no one to convince but yourself.

What absolute rot ... you have to believe in something religiously to defend it? Have you actually listened to yourself?

Keke