[reb]

some minds do not want to wander into things that are 'untestable with current proven instrumentation'. others are capable of going to those 'untestable' areas, and still maintaining a discipline that studies 'physical fact'. when you go into an area that is 'untestable' (i don't consider logic a valid test, either, as it is a man made construct, and unproven at the extremes of experience, just as is 'time'), you may find that the 'minds that will not wander and do not want to conceive of something more' violently and/or vociferously disagree; they have accepted and clung to 'i don't want to deal with that, so here's where i stand'. there are those that cling to 'logic' as their last bastion of consideration, as well. iow, their stance upon the 'proven' is like religion to them, and we know how controversial religion can be.

the interesting minds (those worth the time to try to understand) are those that encompass 'the measurable', consider the immeasurable, know the difference and can discuss both with equal aplomb, like Stephen Hawking.

[wardo]

In my opinions facts are not the same as truths. It is often the case that the "facts" we write in textbooks are false or potentially false. This "falsification" can come in many forms, either there has been new research disproving the old way of thinking, there is debate about whether a new theory should replace the old theory, there is an emerging theory gaining popularity that contradicts the old theory or the "facts" are over-simplified and can be in general wrong or wrong in certain contexts or situations.

For example, some replaced "facts" were that the spinal cord was unable to repair itself after being severed, glial cells in the CNS were simply glue for neurons and pluto is a planet.

[alrightgame]

	Originally Posted by admittedheretic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You act as though people at large are suppressing the seeking of a creator because of science when that is not true. 90% of this planet in one way or another believes in a character that is no more real than Santa Claus from a scientific perspective.

Wrong, I'm stating that some people that I have met are using science to defend what doesn't need to be defended, then refuting everything else the that they don't want to defend, instead of trying to find truth in the fact that they are defending in the first place.

I don't see anywhere in my comment above that I was blaming science. I have only been using a creator as an extreme example of this.

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by admittedheretic To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The simple explanation is there is no evidence for a creator while the complex explanations encompasses a wide spectrum of religious and other supernatural beliefs.

This is errant nonsense.

Occam's Razor is not on your side in this argument at all; and it is certainly not the fundamental principle to which you should here be appealing.

The whole of modern Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Cosmology is the "simple explanation", with the theistic explanation being more complex? String Theory is a tiny fraction of the "simpler explanation"? Quantum Mechanics pales in comparison to the complexity of "Intelligent Design"? The Unified Field Theory is simpler than "In the beginning...?"

This is a dead end for you, and all hard-core materialists.

What you intended to say (giving you the benefit of the doubt) is this, following Einstein and others in their discussion of the ether theory: "Physical theories should be free of metaphysical constructs".

Of course, this has the forensic disadvantage of exposing your (unscientific) monistic bias.

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The whole of Modern physics and Cosmology is the "simple explanation", with the theistic explanation being more complex?

Considering the complexities of modern physics and cosmology derive from observation, and religion(s) attempt to make meta explanations which encompass the observable universe AND tack on an additional supernatural dimension, it becomes very easy to spot the wart that the razor is coming for.

If you mean to say that it's much harder to understand Schroedinger's Equation than it is to simply say "God did it", then you are betraying a woeful understanding of Occam's razor. Occam's razor isn't about the specific inference, but rather the number of improbable or unproven assumptions one must take as true to reach the inference. If I can cite all of modern physics as the basis for Schroedinger's Equation, then you would be hard pressed to disprove the entirety of that set of observations to disprove my theory. If I were to ask you to prove "God did it" and your sole source is the book that says that "God did it" then you are on much shakier ground.

[Monte314]

Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Considering the complexities of modern physics and cosmology derive from observation, and religion(s) attempt to make meta explanations which encompass the observable universe AND tack on an additional supernatural dimension, it becomes very easy to spot the wart that the razor is coming for. If you mean to say that it's much harder to understand Schroedinger's Equation than it is to simply say "God did it", then you are betraying a woeful understanding of Occam's razor. Occam's razor isn't about the specific inference, but rather the number of improbable or unproven assumptions one must take as true to reach the inference. If I can cite all of modern physics as the basis for Schroedinger's Equation, then you would be hard pressed to disprove the entirety of that set of observations to disprove my theory. If I were to ask you to prove "God did it" and your sole source is the book that says that "God did it" then you are on much shakier ground.

Stick to the point.

I need one unproven (and undisprovable) assumption: the existence of a creator God. I don't have to explain how He did it, nor do I have to explain the complexity that arose therefrom.

You, on the other hand, start with end rather than the means, and must explain, with less than one unproven assumption (to be simpler according to your definition) how something came to be from nothing. Once again... Occam is not your friend here.

So, how did something come to be from nothing? Give us your simple answer. Make no unproven assumptions.

[iglookazoo]

Originally Posted by wardo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

In my opinions facts are not the same as truths. It is often the case that the "facts" we write in textbooks are false or potentially false. This "falsification" can come in many forms, either there has been new research disproving the old way of thinking, there is debate about whether a new theory should replace the old theory, there is an emerging theory gaining popularity that contradicts the old theory or the "facts" are over-simplified and can be in general wrong or wrong in certain contexts or situations. For example, some replaced "facts" were that the spinal cord was unable to repair itself after being severed, glial cells in the CNS were simply glue for neurons and pluto is a planet.

I agree. Sometimes, "facts" are distorted to promote an agenda. History books are notorious for omissions and distortions. For example, there were Japanese textbooks that refused to talk about the rape of Nanking.

It was a "fact" that the working poor were inferior. Didn't make it true.

It was also a "fact" that the Earth was stationary and everything revolved around it. Didn't make it true.

The thing is, we live on such a tiny speck in a vast space, and we don't know much of anything. However, the tools we have (science, philosophy, etc), can hopefully help us make sense of it, in human terms, anyway.

[Autoptic]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I need one unproven (and undisprovable) assumption: the existence of a creator God. I don't have to explain how He did it, nor do I have to explain the complexity that arose therefrom.

Such an entity is a whole mess of assumptions—many self-contradictory. So the entity, the act, and the result which constitute the whole of your ontology are all inexplicable. Your saying your explanation needn't explain anything.

	You, on the other hand, start with end rather than the means, and must explain, with less than one unproven assumption (to be simpler according to your definition) how something came to be from nothing. Once again... Occam is not your friend here.

Reality is the end. We are the end. All that is known is the end. We must start here.

	So, how did something come to be from nothing? Give us your simple answer. Make no unproven assumptions.

The inability to explain something with no currently forthcoming evidence isn't trumped by a mere asspull.

[Sinequanon]

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Stick to the point. I need one unproven (and undisprovable) assumption: the existence of a creator God. I don't have to explain how He did it, nor do I have to explain the complexity that arose therefrom. You, on the other hand, start with end rather than the means, and must explain, with less than one unproven assumption (to be simpler according to your definition) how something came to be from nothing. Once again... Occam is not your friend here. So, how did something come to be from nothing? Give us your simple answer. Make no unproven assumptions.

Science does not purport to, nor need to, explain how "something came from nothing" in order to make a theorem work. Your question is as nonsensical to what science aims to do as it would be for someone to continually and incessantly insist that you explain "Where the numbers come from" in your math classes.

The claim that natural phenomenon have a scientific explanation fully encompassed within the theories of science is fundamentally different than claiming that natural phenomenon have a supernatural origin. Once you make that claim, it is on you to explain the nature of that supernatural origin, why it lies outside of the observable realm and why you know what you know (in the case of science, repeatable experiments satisfies this obligation). So I reject the claim that "God did it" requires only one unproven assumptions. It requires something on the order of an infinite number of unproven assumptions (more than, say "Aliens did it" because one could at least claim aliens could have originated in the natural world).

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Science does not purport to, nor need to, explain how "something came from nothing" in order to make a theorem work.

That's a lot of words... but there's no answer in there. Claiming that you don't have to answer what you claim is a simple question is not an answer.

According to you, the answer is simple. Where did all this stuff come from? Make no unproven assumptions. I'll keep asking until you provide your simple, Occam-Proof answer.

[jndiii]

Originally Posted by Sinequanon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Science does not purport to, nor need to, explain how "something came from nothing" in order to make a theorem work. Your question is as nonsensical to what science aims to do as it would be for someone to continually and incessantly insist that you explain "Where the numbers come from" in your math classes. The claim that natural phenomenon have a scientific explanation fully encompassed within the theories of science is fundamentally different than claiming that natural phenomenon have a supernatural origin. Once you make that claim, it is on you to explain the nature of that supernatural origin, why it lies outside of the observable realm and why you know what you know (in the case of science, repeatable experiments satisfies this obligation). So I reject the claim that "God did it" requires only one unproven assumptions. It requires something on the order of an infinite number of unproven assumptions (more than, say "Aliens did it" because one could at least claim aliens could have originated in the natural world).

This is eminently logical. The main problem with respect to science is that it necessarily assumes that there is no such thing as a primal cause (supernatural or otherwise). Any phenomenon B must have had some preceding cause A: B didn't "just happen". Even in quantum mechanics where it comes down to probabilities, the probability that B "just happened" is defined by a prior state A. There's nothing wrong with this, it's just how science is framed, and it properly describes the world around us. It implies, however, that science rejects the notion of a primal cause axiomatically. Science assumes that God doesn't exist not merely because God is supernatural, but rather because the notion of a creator God stipulates a primal cause.

This does neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. Rather, it is like dealing with infinity as part of the set of numbers: one can take a limit approaching infinity, but the result "at infinity" is never actually reached. Neither the domain nor the range of science can actually reach the beginning of the universe (if such exists, the big bang notwithstanding), it can only approach it. Hence your need for an infinitude of unproven assumptions to reach "God."

Unsurprisingly, stipulating a God doesn't bring us any closer to understanding the "creation" of the universe, either. Yes, it logically sets up a primal cause from which everything else follows, but a key ingredient is missing: what particular action was primal, and what was its initial state? Stipulating a God or any variety of primal cause (e.g., the big bang "just happened") still doesn't tell us how you get from a primal cause to where we are now. There's still an infinite regression of logical steps.

( Show Spoiler )

FWIW, I'm neither trying to advocate nor dismiss the notion of God, but rather explore the limits of science and logic to make statements regarding classically understood notions of God. So deeply ingrained is the scientific bias against a primal cause, Einstein's self-admitted greatest mistake was intuitively rejecting the notion of a cosmology with a definite beginning (the big bang), before which even time did not exist. Such biases, while axiomatic to science, retard scientific advancement. Ironically, it was Aquinas who initially suggested that there was nothing "before" the beginning of the universe, that God created time, as well.

[Monte314]

I'm still waiting for the simple response. No "unproven" assumptions, of course.

[jndiii]

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Stick to the point. I need one unproven (and undisprovable) assumption: the existence of a creator God. I don't have to explain how He did it, nor do I have to explain the complexity that arose therefrom. You, on the other hand, start with end rather than the means, and must explain, with less than one unproven assumption (to be simpler according to your definition) how something came to be from nothing. Once again... Occam is not your friend here. So, how did something come to be from nothing? Give us your simple answer. Make no unproven assumptions.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm still waiting for the simple response. No "unproven" assumptions, of course.

How do you get from your assumption to an initial state of the universe? Is there a simple explanation for that? More to the point, what was the initial state of the universe?

[Sinequanon]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's a lot of words... but there's no answer in there. Claiming that you don't have to answer what you claim is a simple question is not an answer. According to you, the answer is simple. Where did all this stuff come from? Make no unproven assumptions. I'll keep asking until you provide your simple, Occam-Proof answer.

Science doesn't have an answer for "where everything came from". Religion does, but it requires unproven, unfounded and, more troubling, unprovable assumptions. The simpler explanation between "infinite unproven assumptions" and "null assumptions" is the latter, which is where empirical science has laid things for now. If we do ever find out the explanation in a naturalistic sense for where everything came from, then when someone asks a scientist, they will have an answer. It's really not that complicated.

[alrightgame]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, how did something come to be from nothing? Give us your simple answer. Make no unproven assumptions.

Nothing comes from nothing, nothing can't make something, and something can't make nothing.

Unless nothing is something.... what could that something be? (this is not a rhetorical question).

This question spins us around back in the direction of what science is to be used for, asking questions and trying to answer them empirically - about everything - dismissiveness does not appear to be part of science, so I ask the question again, why are some people being so dismissive of things they don't know?



This goes offtrack a bit, so you guys can read it if you wish.

( Show Spoiler )

Also my hypothesis about God, creator, whatever, is a repeated "quantum probability". I see no reason why an infinite answer to this can't exist. There is a repetition of creators, creating that which came after them, and of course using something to create, instead of nothing.
I have said this in another forum. God is just something "small" that was created by something "larger" with a material used in that creation. If this repeated creation goes on infinitely, then there is no reason to explain cause with out effect, or effect without cause, because there is no beginning in infinite, and no end either.

[TigerL]

It appears some of this thread is headed towards a debate regarding science, religion, and truth. I come from a different background perhaps than some participating in this thread. I was raised in a Taoist/ Buddhist tradition and it has been interesting to watch the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S.

IMO, Science and religion are two mutually exclusive areas that address different aspects of life in different ways. You can be a good scientist and atheist; you can be a good scientist and a devout Roman Catholic but one field should not be confused with the other.

The heart of science is using the scientific method to generate hypotheses, test hypotheses, and provide feedback to improve on current models of how things work. If a model works well enough, it is adopted, disseminated, and taught. Where the teaching of science goes awry is when the models are put forth as absolute fact and less emphasis is placed on the scientific method and HOW the model was initially constructed.

On a high school level, it may be necessary given time constraints/ student learning level to present models as "facts" but at the college level, students should begin to understand more how we arrived at "facts." Good scientists are always questioning why the current models do not explain certain observations and open to modifying/ discarding models when a better one comes along. These latter ideas do not get transmitted as well as they should.

One of my main problems with the current debate about teaching intelligent design/ creationism in schools is because it seems like the proponents do not seem to understand the centrality of the scientific method to science. Religion cannot be tested by the scientific method - it's like comparing apples and oranges.

Not about the scientific method but for those interested in how historians gather evidence to put together history, I suggest the book "After the Fact." Rather than reading about history itself, the book comprises case studies of how well-established history was changed by new evidence.

[Mader]

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God/creator. You may be trying to get your answers from the wrong folks.

Asking questions, being open to possibilities is good. However, science has been around a long time and many possibilities have been rejected for good reason thru valid, scientific methods. Therefore, perhaps, your possibilities HAVE been tried and proven incorrect, in error, not valid - take your pick.

Science cannot prove love. It can study human behavior, study various biological functions, changes in hormones,brain receptors, collect data, come to a scientific conclusion etc., but all of that is still, not love. Asking questions is good, but asking the right question, in the best area is necessary.

Science will never be able to prove the existance of God, at least until God shows up a the door to the lab. People believe in ghosts, angels, reincarnation, UFO's, esp (do we still call it that) - science cannot prove the existance of any of these, so in scientific terms, they do not exist. Doesn't mean they don't exist, but that science cannot prove them . Your questions need to be taken to another department on campus.

[CWC]

At 7,I asked why 2+2=4 and I termed 'blue',yellow.

They all said it was the way it is and name called me.I don't buy it.

[Towiel]

My Webster's dictionary states that 'facts' are things supposed to be true and that 'truth' is well established or verified facts. Thus truth is greater than facts.

Truth

• that which is actual.
• It is not fiction (could happen but didn't, found in novels and movies)
• It is not falsehood (lies and untruths stated as fact)
• It is not fantasy (things that cannot happen, pigs flying)
• It is not fake (imitations of the real thing)

Science
Facts are based on observation and math to study the physical / natural world. It is unable to study the spiritual / supernatural.

Philosophy
Facts are based on pure logic to understand existence in relation to less tangible things such as beauty, emotions, and the supernatural.

Religion
Facts are based on religious text. Primarily studies the spiritual with an emphasis on the relationship of mankind with the Almighty.

Science, philosophy, and religion all claim to have the truth, but each uses different methods and different sources of 'facts' to arrive at that truth. Also, each tends to disregard the other's 'facts' ... this is sad as we could probably get the most 'factual' truth by all of them working together. By not exploring all the facts / truths out, we are missing the totality of it all.

My Personal Conclusion

( Show Spoiler )

I read what the Bible has to say about life (physically and spiritually) and I compare that to my experiences in life (physically, spiritually, scientifically, philosophically, and religiously) and the Scriptures are found to be incredibly accurate.

[admittedheretic]

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is errant nonsense. Occam's Razor is not on your side in this argument at all; and it is certainly not the fundamental principle to which you should here be appealing. The whole of modern Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Cosmology is the "simple explanation", with the theistic explanation being more complex? String Theory is a tiny fraction of the "simpler explanation"? Quantum Mechanics pales in comparison to the complexity of "Intelligent Design"? The Unified Field Theory is simpler than "In the beginning...?" This is a dead end for you, and all hard-core materialists. What you intended to say (giving you the benefit of the doubt) is this, following Einstein and others in their discussion of the ether theory: "Physical theories should be free of metaphysical constructs". Of course, this has the forensic disadvantage of exposing your (unscientific) monistic bias.

String Theory is hardly a tiny fraction of the explainable and your ignorance shows because it very well may prove to be a real Theory of Everything someday. Consciousness may prove to be just biological AI with no distinction other than its complexity. Any 6 year old could ravel off something more complicated than all of science has explained in our existence.

I gravitate towards explanations that do not involve theologies and the supernatural. I am well aware that something that can not be explained is indistinguishable of what would be considered supernatural, but thank goodness Santa Claus gave me intuition.

I might not be able to disprove that god isn't real, but you can't disprove that Santa isn't either. I expect a 6 year old to believe whatever they are told, but not for intelligent, competent, and autonomous adults.

	Originally Posted by alrightgame To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If this repeated creation goes on infinitely, then there is no reason to explain cause with out effect, or effect without cause, because there is no beginning in infinite, and no end either.

For cause and effect to go out the window then time must not flow forward like a river.

General Relativity and other theories don't disallow time to flow in other ways, but it is just something we haven't observed on any level.

I see a lot of past self in the way you think and I think you might find some unexpected answers studying various fields of physics. Many people who study physics feel it is just further beautiful proof that there is a creator who crafted our delicate universe. I don't think understanding the ideas forces one to be an atheist, but it is important to get educated.

	Originally Posted by Mader To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Science cannot prove love. It can study human behavior, study various biological functions, changes in hormones,brain receptors, collect data, come to a scientific conclusion etc., but all of that is still, not love. Asking questions is good, but asking the right question, in the best area is necessary.

Science cannot even prove how gravity works yet. Still, we don't dismiss what we know about it on that account. Science explains exactly what love is, but obviously it can't explain why two particularly people fall in love because of human behaviors influence from far too numerous experiences.

Gravity holds your butt in your chair the same way love is a chemical called oxytocin.

[deinotes]

	Originally Posted by knght990 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I get completely pissed off at my engineer friends when they refuse to question what they have been taught. Question everything.

Why question it when it works ?
Yes it may be built on quicksand and it may not be 100% truth.
But in 99.99% of the cases it works perfect it's really nice to see how some rather simple equations come into play when calculating the most complex things.
And how nicely it aligns up with the real world.
I think non engineers see it too simple they only see the end result a big complex calculation.
But there is a way poeple came to that big calculation it's a road from where they once found out x then someone else a few hundredth years later found out y and then with x and y combined and a lot of algebra down the road they came up with z.
With the finding out of the different facts there was much debate and these facts where many time violently oppressed and only came into existence because they where better than the current theories. The theories also are tested many times and the only reason we have them today is because in 100% of the times they passed the tests.
I think the problem here is not that your engineer friend questions things enough but that you know to little about engineering
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
I am a electrical engineer and i too questioned all the basic equations but when you see where they came from and how they work in the real world it's foolish to question them unless you have a problem and they don't work.
Why reinvent the wheel ?

[alrightgame]

	Originally Posted by deinotes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Why reinvent the wheel ?

I agree that facts have to be used at face value to continue living, but when people start asking questions, discoveries are made.


As far as "ghost" and UFO activity is concerned, there has been tons of evidence pointing towards its existence. Science cannot prove why they exist, but hard facts dictate something is there (you cannot dismiss the thousands of people who saw those UFOs in Mexico all at once, nor the machines ghost hunters have been using to graph their findings), yet so many scientists dismiss it because they have not seen it with their own eyes. That is the practice of bad science.

[CWC]

Originally Posted by alrightgame To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I agree that facts have to be used at face value to continue living, but when people start asking questions, discoveries are made. As far as "ghost" and UFO activity is concerned, there has been tons of evidence pointing towards its existence. Science cannot prove why they exist, but hard facts dictate something is there (you cannot dismiss the thousands of people who saw those UFOs in Mexico all at once, nor the machines ghost hunters have been using to graph their findings), yet so many scientists dismiss it because they have not seen it with their own eyes. That is the practice of bad science.

You nailed a good point there.

The verification of truth in science,is unlike that which is being practiced in the judicary system-where one is guilty until proven otherwise-a one faceted system.

Science,not good science or bad science,is one that maintains its severe tested front of neutrality.
If one's arugment points toward the existence of supernatural non-abstrata entities,then one must with its fecundity of prediposition towards reasonings and factual edvidences prove it.Otherwise,the question of its existence still remains an open-ended question.
Committing an unseen to the flame,is bad philosophy.Just so,the culprit could for all be the inept of human understandings with a combination of poor technologies.

[curiousgeorge01]

I don't know if this will help you but I have two friends who have trouble working with people who are highly structured in their thoughts.

One is an excellent business man who hires a lot of engineers to build products. He always tells me engineers are a strange bunch, they're so structured in thinking of mechanical processes that they miss the subtleties of life that would make them successful financially (mostly). That's why businessmen are needed to guide them to build something useful, since they have trouble thinking outside the box.

My other friend is highly regarded in the alternative medicine field and works closely with medical doctors; he was actually offered a professorship at an Ivy League to teach medical doctors the alternative ways of looking at medicine. His biggest qualms with them is that they are so fixated on what they are taught that they have trouble accepting the power of the mind and of the Earth (I know a lot of people are going to think this is mumbo jumbo). Often times when medical doctors fail their patients, they end up going to him and the solution is much simpler than what was offered to them by the MDs.

I guess what I'm saying is that sometimes if you're thinking too much in facts and the known, you close off your world. I always thought thinking in terms of facts was more of a 'S' quality, but I know a lot of forumites who think like that.





curiousgeorge01 added to this post, 1 minutes and 50 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Synamon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Shocking, since the opposite of fact is fiction. Wait a second, science has no interest in fiction.

This is wrong, science has a big interest in fiction. A lot of things are thought by the imagination before it becomes reality. If you want recent examples, light speed travel and teleportation.

[LordCorbin]

The simple answer to your question is this: Dogma is not solely the province of the religious. Scientists can be just as closed minded and dogmatic as anyone else, you just need to remember that you need to find your own answers and understand how it is you reached them.