Re: "Reality, perception, religion and science all topics which are worthy of debate."
I wonder. Is it really necessary to debate the success of science? I grant that people often do and that when they do, it is almost always on the grounds of their particular religious beliefs. But when has science ever been shown to take a back seat? There have been dozens (if not hundreds or thousands), of clashes between the two. But when the smoke finally clears, which one always seems to remain supported and demonstrable while the other is forced into the category of "faith", simply because it lies contrary to the evidence?
The problem is the human condition. None of us ever wants to be shown to have been other than aligned with reality. We're conditioned to believe it is correct to follow our convictions whether supportable or not. We're also conditioned to find shame if those convictions do not stand up well against the demonstrable convictions of others. So rather than seeking truth through logic and dispassionate reason, we tend to do so on grounds of emotion, tradition, family-pride and personal ego.
For those who do not dismiss science on the grounds of its inability to support their most passionately held ideas, this lack of dispassionate reason in the selection of our political and religious ideas has been the subject of scientific research completed at Stony brook University under the direction of Charles Taber and reported in Scientific American magazine. It was found that on issues of politics and religion, we build our constructs not from a position of reason, but from one of emotion. The study demonstrated how an individual's reaction to any key word flashed on a computer screen, could be modified at the will of the researchers through the introduction of a subliminal image known to be emotionally negative or positive to the test subject through a survey completed prior to this stage of the study. This conclusive demonstration only echos the sentiments offered by Mark Twain in his statement; "In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
When our issues become emotional rather than logical, can there be any real hope of establishing truths based on demonstration? Or is it more likely that any demonstration contrary to our adopted beliefs will be summarily dismissed along with those presenting them?
What's worse is that even if one can critically, definitively and demonstrably show their stance to be correct on logical and reasonable grounds, what they will garner for themselves is not unlike the fate faced by those who have a place in history for having done this in the past. Galileo, Bruno, Darwin and many others have presented their positions on the basis of demonstrable factuality, and been shunned, abandoned, imprisoned, criticized, killed and likely even abandoned by those they love for their trouble. We accept their truths today, but in their own time, when they drove directly against the popular flow and emotionally founded, they were considered criminals, heretics, trouble-makers, arrogant, dangerous, insolent and unworthy of affection . Nothing about the attitude that leads to such treatment of those who offer conclusive demonstrations contrary to popular beliefs has changed.
The more definitive an unpopular demonstration, the more hatred and dismissal it tends to bring to those offering the demonstration. At the very best, we are criticized for such efforts even by those for whom we hold great respect and great affection. So when one finds a demonstrable truth, for their own benefit, it would seem the best they can do for themselves is to hide it from the eyes of those who would rather not be offered truths which lie in contrast to that which they hold as truth, despite an inability to demonstrate it to be truth. Is it really so hard to believe that when two concepts are at odds, the one which can be shown to be in accordance with demonstrated reality is far more likely to represent truth than one which cannot?
Re: "I think I understand what you mean when you refer to reality and perception, you have found your own path of investigation which you follow and believe in, and I have found mine."
My only comment to this is that it is not "my path". It is a path -- a path which has been demonstrating its ability to reveal truth for over 400-years and yet, has never been granted the acceptance it has earned because of its ability and need to challenge ideas which have gained popular favor through appeals to emotion, tradition, hope to the contrary, and desire.
Re: "However I for one can only share what I believe and why."
Which is all any of us can do. And if we fall to the minority or against the desires of others, we will suffer immeasurably for having done so. I was right once. I may be right again.
