Mr. Ferraro,
First and foremost, I would like to extend my deepest regrets for the loss of your father and hope that you and your family receive comfort as soon as humanly possible.
Secondly, I would like to thank you for reading.
As a scientist in training, it is true that I go to work everyday to better understand the truth, or lack thereof.
I do understand that there is only so much science can unravel about life, the universe, and everything.
However, this should not stop us in the pursuit of knowledge and, therefore, the evolution of the human mind.
One thing that puzzles me Mr. Ferraro - why the quotes around science?
Thanks again,
Phil

first it is Joe and not Mr.

I truly appreciate your thoughts.
our family is coming together quite nicely - thanks!

The reason science got the quotes is that there is too much reliance on science as a crutch or a weapon.
if you start talking to some scientists you can replace some of their words and arguments with hyper-religious people.

Science is a set of tools and nothing more.
Hammers pound nails - some pull them too, that is what they are designed for.
I think scientists get in trouble when they try to make their hammers do more than what it was designed for.

There is nothing wrong with asking questions - that is what philosophy is.
The problem, for me, comes when these ideas are used to attack the other side unfairly.

wrote this a few years ago - you might like.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-the-nerd-ferraro/bishops-of-atheism_b_331551.html

Interesting read Joe. Thank you!

As opposed to 'if nothing can prove it then we must devoutly believe in it?'

Nobody with even the vaguest understanding of the scientific method adheres to scientific findings as inarguable proof, a more accurate view of teaching science is that it is all theory, tested and retested until the probability of error is extremely small. Science doesn't preclude the possibility of an extra-dimensional plane of consciousness after brain death, it's just that there is no evidence of that, no non-anecdotal indication of that, and no prior discovery to imply its possibility.

Dr. Alexander seems to have experienced what most near-death patients report in that state: hazy tunnel vision, the inability to distinguish time passing, feeling of relief, and perhaps euphoria, as the body floods with naturally stored chemicals like dopamine.

It's not arrogance to dismiss the likelihood of 'Heaven,' much less the specific Christian Heaven, its simply data-based reasoning.

Being a student at a so-called "liberal university," I can tell you that we in the biology department are taught science and are told that the tools we are given are based in theory and fact. I'm not sure what kind of "scientists" you have met, but none of the ones I know have the blind audacity to say that things outside the realm of science are, well outside the realm of science. We all love music, art, literature, and spirituality as much as anyone else.

ty Jack - I appreciate it.

You might want to look at the article i just gave to Philip.
My positions came from that liberal of liberal institutions - TEMPLE !!!

I have a few articles on the arrogance of the overly-educated.
Somehow people who get an advanced degree in one thing think they are expert in all things...

Thank you for your comment. I unfortunately feel that people think scientists are on the opposite end of the spectrum from everyone else - that just isn't the case. Being in the academic field of biology, I don't feel this way at all. I have meet many people that have successfully combined both science and religion in their lives.

Just as I stated before, I have never met people that feel the way you make scientists out to be. It is unfortunate that you have these feelings. Perhaps meeting some of the people I work with as my research mentor, a Jesuit priest and evolutionary biologist, will refresh your view of science and scientists.

mmmm - crunchy

Just noticed this, laughing. Joe. Delightfully twisted thou art. :-)

Framing your point against the hypothetical scientist who argues 'if the scientific method cannot prove a thing, it is false until so proven' is one of the best, clearest examples of a strawman fallacy I have encountered. This person doesn't actually exist, and, even if he did, he doesn't actually represent the group as a whole. I suppose that's not entirely dissimilar to your 'you are the Obama electorate' bit in the political discussions - trying to cast one opinion as a blanket condemnation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Mr. Minster,
I'm still not understanding your argument. The scientific method is a process to understand the physical universe. I stress the word physical. Science has given us a great many things. I'm sure that you enjoy your car, the computer you are using to write your comments, and the medical research that has led to countless advances in human health. Scientists, like myself do this out of passion and good will. I know that you are Joe like to talk about politics and you are both very learned in the topic. I would never try to come into one of your debates and bring information that was not well researched because it would be "slap in the face" to you both. I am not saying that I do not enjoy your comments and they are most welcome here. What I am saying is that, I feel you have a very one-sided view of scientist and the scientific method. I urge you to reach out and ask scientists what science means to them. As Joe said, science is a tool, just like a hammer or a nail. A hammer cannot explain God, the afterlife, or anything of the sort. Science is something I am very passionate about but also realize that there is so much more to the world outside the realm of science. Science changes everyday and it is very important to keep an open mind.

Actually, it does not say " Love God" nor " Love your neighbor" anywhere in the ten commandments........though it DOES say " thall shalt not suffer a witch to live.".As for your claim to eyewitness accounts, hence it becomes historically accurate? These accounts are only as accurate as the knowledge of the write allows. Would a sequestered tribe member in New Guinea 50 years ago been able to to accurately write about a television? Would it have been a black magic box in which demons came forth and spoke in tounges? You can stick to your " faith" which leads to blind acceptance, I will stick to my science which requires me to question.

Just like 100% of your other blog posts, Morgan, this one is no exception. Attacking the messenger not the message. Spinning fact into "hypotheticals", etc. You ARE the Obama electorate.

http://biology.brown.edu/bug/neuro

The above professors at Brown are but one example of real, not hypothetical individuals who teach "if the scientific method cannot provide a shred of credence for a theory, abandon the myth and move on to another that may be more scientifically provable." Directly selling the atheist foundation to impressionable young minds. Also Morgan I cited an actual scientific study, How Corrosive Is College to Religious Faith and Practice? conducted by Mark D. Regnerus who proved that 62 percent of kids who go to college with religious beliefs leave without them.

Your polite and intelligent response is to call me a "strawman" and provide a link to the wiki definition of a strawman.

Jokester. Your President informs us you'll be voting for REVENGE tomorrow. Fits you perfectly.

Jack, I understand how disheartening it can be to see people stray away from religious beliefs that you hold so dear but just remember something, no mind is more impressionable than a child's. A person of faith should have unshakable resolve. Perhaps, it is God's plan that these people have questioned their beliefs.

Philip, I was correcting a rude erroneous post made by Morgan-stalker, and reiterating an earlier point. As to your comment, I do not suffer from "disheartening." I do observe that science/atheism is absolutely unquestioned in schools, where as Intelligent Design or any other historic or logic-based attempt to suggest the existence of or influence by deity on the natural world, is iniquitous.

If you Philip were to believe your own posts, you would support a full and complete course training starting in the middle or secondary education levels of all world religions, dives as deep as world history, European history, American history, etc. After all, how can anyone possibly understand why a healthy young man would strap on explosives and detonate himself in an Israel shopping mall killing dozens of innocent children, and that his family will now receive direct martyr benefits from his government, without taking a deep dive into Islam, as an example.

Again Jack, science and atheism are not the same thing. Science is the use of observation to better understand the natural world. That's it and that's all. Intelligent design cannot be tested and therefore does not belong in a science class. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with religion. Creationism frankly doesn't have a leg to stand on. You wouldn't discuss Shakespeare in a mathematics course. Again, it is very possible to embrace both science and religion. Unfortunately, on both sides, people like differently. They have nothing to do with one another.

I received world religion courses in both a Catholic high school and in college and they are part of the curriculum. So, I do support it very much. You just have to remain in the scope of the class. Again, Science is about hypothesizing, observing, and testing. If it can't be tested, it is outside the scope of science and therefore, none of our business. I suggest reading a previous article that tackles faith and evolution: http://uppermoreland.patch.com/articles/the-theory-of-evolution-made-simple

In The Grand Design, Professor Stephen Hawking argues that the Big Bang, rather than occurring following the intervention of a divine being, was inevitable due to the law of gravity. "There is no God... there is no heaven, it's a fairy story," he argues, using science to disprove the existence of God. He gets a voice in schools.

A historian arguing that secular sources also support the supernatural events associated with the ministry of Jesus Christ, such as court writings of the time describing him as a sorcerer, etc, would be banned from study faster than you can say "Separation of Church and State."

There is an arrogance there. Historical science has less value than astrophysics.

I actually covered this very topic after Discovery Channel premiere of the show curiosity:
uppermoreland.patch.com/articles/is-there-no-more-room-for-god
I agree that Professor Hawking makes an interesting argument, but just like Intelligent Design, it cannot be testing as it something to discuss rather than experiment

And Jack, let's be honest, there isn't enough empirical evidence to either refute or bolster in the miracles of the Bible, that's were faith comes in

Unless you know someone who can walk on water, it looks like we can't test this out either

Jack, how is it fact, and not hypothetical, that scientists - all of them, by your blanket statement, and none of them, by any proof proffered - argue 'if the scientific method cannot prove a thing, it is false until so proven'?

I'm not calling you a strawman - the scientist in your argument is the strawman. Maybe you don't understand how this works? Also, I've not disputed that people leaving higher education are less religious - as I posted here, that is a pretty obvious outcome of critical thinking.Faith, by definition, is noncritical.

I don't see anything resembling your quote on the Brown Neuroscience faculty page - who said that, and in what context?

Jack - I am enrolled in a university graduate science program. Just so you know where I am coming from. The word "fact" means that 100% of universities, and therefore 100% of students in the 100% of universities are subject to your erroneous statement. The fact that I have never experienced what you are talking about disproves your "fact." Perhaps you need to visit a university and sit in on a science course or two. Believe it or not, we discuss science in our science courses and nothing else. In the many religion and philosophy courses I have had, we do not cover science. Universities are a place of learning and a place to explore many different subjects and ideas. It is true, that these topics may come into debate, but debate leads to understanding, respect, and learning. At my university, we have a course titled "God and Evolution" which is taught by a scientist who is also member of the clergy. The undergraduates and graduates who share a lab with me come from very diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds and we respect one another even though we discuss our differences in our beliefs or lack of beliefs. I am not a Christian, but I do believe in a Higher Power. My understanding in science only increases my wonder of the unknown and God - it does not diminish it. Jack, making blanket standards is never a good idea. No one is belittled for their beliefs in God. You are talking about a minority of the scientific and academic world.

College education teaches us to think critically, and if that means that some people lose their religious beliefs then so be it. I myself entered college as a "catholic" and left being more spiritual and more understanding of everyone's beliefs, Judeo-Christian or not. This, however, didn't result from college directly, but from a culmination of many aspects in my life that changed. There is a huge difference between religion and spirituality and the world and the people in it will undoubtedly evolve to a more utilitarian set of morals and beliefs - it is unstoppable. God is greater than any set or rules and regulations outlined by one religion. As far as your conservative/liberal argument, all I can say is that religion should not coincide with political views. I am truly sorry that you have come in contact with students who have lost faith and teachers who teach that faith is folly. Just remember, there is nothing wrong with questioning everything, even religious beliefs.

Of course higher education's emphasis on critical thinking leads towards less faith - faith, by its very definition, is noncritical. Religion has always been about teaching a society's morals and laws through an appeal to an unchangeable authority that came before you. Literal interpretation of religious phenomenon, though, is a foolish endeavor - ancient texts relied on the impossible to convey unknowable power (a flaming bush that doesn't burn away! Water transmuted into wine!) and are, pretty clearly, intended as hyperbole. Faith insists you reject reason by presenting the unreasonable as its evidence.

Believe it or not, I believe that all religious views are equally correct. However, I believe that they are equally flawed. It's all the same thing to me - just different flavors of ice cream. I do not argue God. I will say this though: People that lose their faith, gain faith, die, everything and anything, happens for a reason for a plan that we will never comprehend. To quote a favorite meme of mine: "Don't take things to seriously. We are a bunch of talking monkeys travelling on an organic spaceship across the galaxy." Sit back and and enjoy the ride Jack. People change and adapt and so do believes. God is everywhere, in every person, equally and forever. Let us just be tolerant of others. People, like the scientists and students you are talking about, are going through the motions called life. At the end of the day, we are all still loved and accepted equally by God.

I couldn't have said it better myself, thanks Sharpie

?

One Word: Delusional

Morgan-stalker! One word: Derp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGn1Ap14Nd8

No please save me from that superstitious, fear-mongering hokum. I've heard it unfortunately more than once. It's a little too anthropomorphic and petty for God as I understand Him/She/It. Sorry, wasn't sure what you were referencing. Sharpie was making an interesting and insightful comment.