For all those of you who could not make it to yesterday’s second Skeptics of the Round Table meeting here a short summary of some of the subjects that came up in discussion:
- What are the Hampshire Skeptics skeptical about?
- Who would not like to be reborn as a cuddly toy?
- Why discussing with presuppositionist Christians can be fun
- Weird claims about healing powers of human placenta (just for fun see this)
- A joint conclusion that AVWF is most likely humbug
- What is so special about modulated sound waves?
- … and what are non-modulated sound waves? (An answer is still outstanding)
All this – and lots more – was discussed in a jovial manner over a few pizzas (BIG thank you again to Clio) and some drinks.
If this sounds like something you might have enjoyed why not tag along to the next Skeptics of the Round Table on June 13?
Keep watching for updates on Twitter (#WinSotRT) – and apparently we have not made enough noise on Facebook about these meetings so far – so we will also pester you with Facebook reminders in the week coming up to June 13 …
Dammit, yes! This sounds like exactly the sort of thing I would have enjoyed… but I couldn’t make it
I do have a decent enough excuse: I was being entertained at the Royal Albert Hall by an Oscar-winning composer and being given free beer and ice cream. But of course, I would FAR rather have been at SotRT :-\
I’ll do everything I can to be there next time!
P.S. Please elaborate a little on the modulated sound waves thing, I’m intrigued!
Really wanted to come along but I was stuck in theatre ’til late and had no energy by the time I got home
See you all at the Discovery Centre in a couple of weeks!
Another big nomming thanks to Clio for feeding us
Suffering exists becsaue without it, humans would not exist. If every lifeform never experience suffering, we would all be blobs of self replicating proteins never wanting for anything. All of the organisms that existed before us, extinct or not, have given rise to human beings, are a part of the natural pressures that forced our evolution into homo sapiens. Without suffering there would be no evolution, without evolution, there would be no humans to contemplate why suffering exists.This means that suffering is inherent in the existence of evolved lifeforms, and really, do we want it any other way? The existence of suffering is what gets us out of bed in the morning. Its why we try, why we raise our children to the best of our abilities, to prepare our children to cope with the natural suffering that occurs as a result of environmental pressures, and so hope our children evolve better prepared to face the world of tomorrow. The big question is what role should humans play in creating suffering. We have to realize that when we create suffering, we are affecting our own evolution. If we create suffering to punish intelligent and rational people for not following dogma, be it religious, nationalist or tribalist, we will force ourselves to evolve into less intelligent beings. If we push suffering too far, the satisfaction of human life might be so low that we as a species may not care whether we wipe ourselves out and our evolutionary branch may come to an abrupt end (some people call it the Rapture, the final relief from generations of human imposed suffering). We cannot end suffering, but we can manage it to a certain extent to increase our odds of survival or ensure our evolution to a more enlightened species. We are unique among earth species in that we have an opportunity to craft our own evolution or create our own extinction through free will. Our tribalistic behaviors did not have such a profound negative effect on survivability until the advent of technology, so our challenge will be to outhink and outact our destructive tendencies.When we talk about suffering, the worst kind is the suffering that is caused by other humans. We can all understand accidents, or acts of nature that cause suffering, but when our fellow humans deliberately cause suffering, be it for selfish gain or pure sadistic pleasure, that kind of suffering is the most painful and difficult to cope with, yet it should be the easiest type of suffering to manage, if we have the will to manage it.There is a lot to be said of the Golden Rule as a means to manage preventable suffering, but sadly, those who preach the Golden Rule most often seem to follow it least often. The Golden Rule should not be preached as much as it should be practiced becsaue practicing the Golden Rule will do far more to influence and inspire others into practicing the Golden Rule than an infinite amount of evangelizing, or pointing an accusing finger, or casting of stones. So, the next time you attend a religious service, ask yourself whether you are you practicing the Golden Rule or preaching the Golden Rule, are you alleviating suffering, or causing suffering by rebuking others not in your reference group. Ask yourself, is your group sharing fruit or inflicting thorns?
Pedro, first of all I want to apologize for not approving your comment earlier. I was busy and completely forgot to react the notification I got.
Having said that I am curious to understand what caused you to unleash this unexpected combination of half-baked scientific understanding and barely concealed religious preaching as a reply to a rather innocent piece about how much we enjoyed our meeting ….
I also wanted to address a few points that you made:
- Your assumption of suffering as a driving force for evolution is missing the point: Darwin’s theory is based on two basic assumptions: There are limited resources available and all living creatures are competing for them. This competition for resources does not necessarily imply shortage of resources (which would cause suffering). I can imagine other competitive behaviour that could emerge: who gets to the resources fastest or with the least effort, individuals increasing in size for an increased chance with the other sex of their species (sexual selection anyone?) and others. This means your conclusion that in a world without resource shortages we would be happy “blobs” is too simplistic.
- Children are not “evolving” just based on our attempts of raising them, if you are lucky they may develop along the lines we try to push them. Evolutionary psychology is an interesting topic in itself but your simplistic representation again misses the point.
- I am also a big fan of the Golden Rule but I am afraid I cannot claim to always stick to it in a literal sense. I am not good at philosophical reasoning so I will leave it at this but I want to add strict moral codes (e.g. the Ten Commandments) always are difficult to follow (just look at the amount of confessions Roman-Catholics deem necessary to make up for their shortcomings).
- And finally sorry for the quip but based on our repeated reference to how much we enjoyed the pizza generously provided by our most lovely Clio I think our little group definitely “shares fruit”.