Politcal and Religious concepts, a comparison.

[edhopper]

In many of the discussions here there seems to be two sides taken, The side that claims there are paranormal or spiritual events that happen (Demons, the Shroud of Turin, etc..) and the side that says there is no evidence for them.
Being a skeptic by way of using critical thinking, I am of the latter group.
It occurs to me that there is a similarity with the Political discussions we are having on DU. Even though the MSM deems it necessary to present both sides, sometimes one side is just wrong. WMDs, Global Warming, deregulation of financial institutions, The Estate Tax. The right wing often just repeats misinformation and lies. But the idea that there are two sides becomes absolute. As Stephen Colbert said, sometimes the truth is biased.
Now I'm not talking about the larger discussions about faith vs atheism. I'm talking about subjects that deal with paranormal and other events that really don't have any facts to back them up. Just as in politics, sometimes the truth is biased and the evidence doesn't support you.
This is obviously my opinion, a comparison I have observed of late, therefore the language might seem forceful, but I am simply stating my "side", which I think the truth is biased toward. :-)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. You are speaking of duality

I think the MSM and society in general tends towards wanting to show two sides to things-one "good" one "bad". However, I think that the reality of the situation is usually much more complex. This is definitely true with politics--those who automatically dismiss every Republican and Republican idea out of hand without examining them lose the chance of learning a bit how another person thinks and views the world. One does not have to agree with people who have other opinions, but a wise person may see gaining understanding as the first step towards building communication bridges so that actions towards a common good can occur.

One of the hardest things for many to do is to take off their "mental blinders" of prejudice long enough to step into another person's way of thinking. But for us to survive as a species, this might very well be what needs to be done.

Personally, I believe in the evolution of consciousness. I see, and appreciate, the stages through which we have gone, and realize that the point at which we are now is not the end--as long as we exist as a species, we will continue to evolve and grow. I like to think that there could possibly be a time, in the future, when there are no "sides", when the unity and interconnectedness of all things is finally truly understood.

[edhopper]

2. I am not saying there is a right and wrong to

everything. I understand many Conservative points, and while not usually in agreement, do see their side. It is sometimes more of a difference in philosophy than actuality.
But there are times when people simply lie or are wrong.. Bush lied about Iraq. The creationist are wrong about evolution.
As Al Gore said on 60 Minutes, do we need to give Flat-Earthers equal time in a discussion. I wish the MSM would just say, "in contrast so and so says this, of course all the facts say he is wrong".

[HamdenRice]

3. Most scientists I know experience awe about what they don't know

I think that in this forum there are more like three different perspectives.

There are people of faith who believe things that might be described as supernatural and for which there is little "scientific" evidence.

Then there are people who generally self-describe as "skeptics" and "atheists" who seem to believe that factual assertions can be neatly sorted into a series of binary categories, such as things we know are true versus things we know are false; things based on scientific evidence versus things not based on scientific evidence.

Then there is a third set of people, some of whom describe themselves as spiritual, as people of faith, as agnostics, or as non-fundamentalist atheists, who seem to believe that there are things we know are true, things we know are false, and a vast, larger category of thing we don't know and that may be unknowable.

Most advanced scientists I know fall into the third category, not the second category. I think the difference between the second category and the third category is analogous to the difference between "engineers" and "scientists."

Most scientists I know are awed and mystified by what they don't know, and by what they know that is at the limits of our knowledge.

Just to give one example, I have a friend who does molecular immunology. He has become a Buddhist because he is convinced that the behavior and interaction of certain organic molecules cannot be explained by their random meeting in cellular solution. He is convinced that they are "alive" even though orthodox science says they aren't.

Some of the most "spiritual" people I've met have been scientists, but I've never met a skeptic who has expressed that type of mystery.

[edhopper]

4. I am a skeptic

who has expressed that awe you speak of. I would fall under your second category, but believe there are many things we do not understand. This is the sentiment of EVERY skeptic I know, and I know a lot of big name skeptics. There is wonderment and awe in the Universe and one can experience it without capitulating to a "spiritual" view. I find this definition of awe and sense of mystery to be limited and small. Do you not think Einstein or Darwin or Watson and Crick had a sense of awe? I have felt this awe in studying science and art. But I don't feel it on "spiritual" matters. Is my sense of awe less worthy than yours?

My OP was meant to deal with what you call "things we know are true, things we know are false". Either the evidence is in on these things or there is no credible evidence for them in the first place. And yet people want their side to have the same weight as the side with the facts. I specifically said this was not meant to extend to the discussion of faith/atheism. As I said, I see a comparison with some of our current political discourse.

BTW, if you wish to have a civil discussion with the atheist here, do not use the oxymoronic term "fundemntal-atheist".

[uberllama42]

5. I don't see the connection between Buddhism and as-yet-unexplained molecular interactions

That's a fascinating idea, that organic molecules are themselves alive. Could you elaborate on your friend's work and the thought process behind his conclusion that Buddhism explains the biochemistry he is working with? What school of Buddhism does your friend follow? What kind of molecules are we talking about here, specifically?

There's plenty I don't know about Buddhism, and the same goes for chemistry. Regardless, I'd love to hear more about your friend's observations and how he made the connection to Buddhism.

[uberllama42]

6. I see the Estate Tax issue as subjective

I unequivocally support a heavily progressive estate tax, but I don't see how one side on that issue is factually correct and while the other is simply wrong, like with the WMD issue. It's a normative issue, as far as I can tell. I agree with your larger point, that too often the media portray factual questions as normative debates in which both sides deserve equal time. I just don't think the truth is biased toward one side or the other on the estate tax issue. Am I missing some aspect of the debate here?

[edhopper]

7. I did not elebarote

and used Estate Tax as shorthand. What I was referring to was the right wing claim that the Estate Tax caused the loss of Family Farms and Family Small Businesses. There have been no incidents of this happening in this Country, and believe me they looked for one to bolster there feeble argument. It is a factual lie.
You are right that the philosophy of an Estate Tax is more subjective.

[uberllama42]

10. OK I see where you're coming from

Thank you for clarifying. The family-farm lie seems particularly glaring, since there is currently an exemption for small farms and businesses. No one is talking about repealing it.

[Jim__]

8. I'll be curious to see if anyone agrees that they're not on the critical thinking side ...

... but rather on the side that just accepts things without any facts to back them up.

[edhopper]

9. Well there's this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x168029

and this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=165155&mesg_id=165155

and this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=166721&mesg_id=166721

and this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x165590

Of course they think "the truth" backs them up. Even if the facts are against them.