Persuing Open and facing societal conflict

Even before the title of this article can be typed or spoken, a person with any sense about them has to acknowledge that the article is doomed to failure.  There is

nothing that can be said or done that will not result in the harshest of criticism when attempting to deviate from the established norm, fact, truth, etc.  There is always someone who knows more, better, different and therefore all deviant thoughts or efforts should simply cease, even as it is boldly stated that any resultant innovation might be embraced, if it could be proven.

From a sceptic paradigm, both Creationists and Big Bang (or singularity or other similar theory) believers are presenting the same understandings.  That the universe magically sprang into being.  How is it that, thousands of years before big bang theory, people were talking about the universe suddenly appearing?  And why must there have been nothing, before the singularity?  Except perhaps, to explain that we don't know what there was before that supposed event.  It is at least nice to know that, for the time that people have been on earth, we continue to come up with beliefs, theories, proof, and evidence to describe why the world, and the universe, is the way it is.  Yet unfortunately, both religion and science might issue statements on the above questions that would suggest the author simply does not know religion or science anywhere near

well enough to even comment on it, let alone postulate a theory or string any attempt at logic or comparison of the two, polar positions.

Richard Dawkins and Lawrance Krauss, deal with some difficult questions at a joint engagement in Australia, at 0:59:00 of the recording.  There are two distinctly poignant questions at their speaking engagement, the second at 1:04:30 and the last at 1:24:30.  While in answering, some of their approaches and responses were atypical to how certain "authorities" deal with dissenting viewpoints, it appears (although they may argue otherwise) that they conceded a couple of key things.  That there are no "authorities" and that discovery for the sake of learning is paramount.

What is probably the most imperative of the Open movement is (not to question but rather) to make no assumptions based on "authority" or proof.  How can true innovation occur otherwise?

To nit pick specifically on the Dawkins - Krauss engagement, asserting their understanding of the universe by pointing at fantastical assertions made in religious beliefs, citing those as reasons that all of religion is wrong because of those specific assertions is disingenuous.  In the same way that some who assert science knowledge is what it is, simply because it was the will of a higher power is disingenuous.

We observe, time and again, people who don't have an answer, reverting to doctrine or dogma.  In an interview conducted by Alex Tsarkiris, who operates an internet presense as Skeptiko, in which Seth Andrews, who operates an internet presence as The Thinking Atheist, reverts to generally themed responses of the type, "are you trying to convince me, because if so, good luck" or (inferred but not literally stated) "while I cannot prove an opposing viewpoint is wrong, I can provide significant proof  either created by myself or others which solidifies my assertions or point of view as being de facto" and (in reference to unadopted or unpopular, described otherwise as unproven or to date, unsubstantiated theories) "that's not science".  Regardless of what might be the answer, Mr. Andrews questions Mr. Tsarkiris' belief in God or other "paranormal" beliefs.  What is important to note here is, someone who is open (or in the case of Mr. Tsarkiris, who may be a true sceptic) will allow their thoughts and efforts to travel down a path, without assumption or prior "proof" that an effort will fail (or succeed).  As the effort itself is simply to learn or perhaps to learn more on a subject and what such a person believes may not just be inconsequential, but may actually

be the reason to pursue such research in order to know better or possibly in a different way.

So far, this may seem like an attack on scientific or atheist thinking.  Certainly, it is somewhat one sided or slanted, specifically because most everyone has heard at some point in time, the arguments against religious thinking and how religion is closed.  The scientific community, in many examples as cited above, have similar approaches when their own belief systems, that which they describe as provable and factual, are questioned.  When people have their belief systems pushed to the edges and beyond, they shut down and push back.  When one works their way down the chain, in the end, there are four key positions:  religion can explain science as divine will, science can not discount core religious assertions, whereas science is, or will eventually be, able to describe all things, and science has no room for or tolerance of religion or any other fantastic deviations of thought or speculation.  In both arenas, dissenters are ultimately silenced, as dissenters fear loosing their stature (and funding) by being chastised by the purists.

Future articles will examine how the scientific community denounces things like Cold Fusion or Tesla's theories that electrical energy can be collected and distributed by way of latent, earth based conduits, which may actually hold significant scientific

validity, if not scientific and humanistic value.

It is possible that people might best be served by way of optimistic scepticism.  It is certainly of little value to deny everything that does not fit our framework of understanding.  Further, when some theory or observation is wildly contrary to established facts or beliefs, it is denied.  Rather, if we follow a path which considers objective understanding, with a dose of child like belief and abandon, we will be able to explore things which we are told CAN NOT be true, in order to find a million ways that it is not true, before we find a way that it IS true and in doing so, innovate and advance ourselves forward.  Scientific knowledge can be just as detrimental to advancement, or NEW knowledge, as any religious belief.

Religion follows religion, science follows science, and this is the nature of how A possibility that is contrary to what we believe, appears to not just be rare, but also appears to be where some of the most significant, innovative and disruptive advancements in society are made.  It is probably most unfortunate that, where it matters most, more time and effort is spent asserting and defending one point of view against all others, than actually allowing for differing points of view and working together towards a future end, what ever and how ever that may be.  Being able to not just tolerate the wildest assertions of others, but to actually become vulnerable and examine these things further, opening up to a possibility that things may not always be what they seem.  That there is room for both that which is real, and pursuing things that might appear to only be fantastic.

So, in closing this article, it should be stated everything written here could be nonsensical and without merit.  There is the possibility that the person reading these

last paragraphs may actually argue against many assertions posited herein.  Yet, while it might be stated that science is not a belief nor holds to unwarranted dogmas and is in fact very open to differing opinions, even while asserting that something is only true if it can withstand rigid peer review against current scientific principles, there is the possibility it may very well be up to those who remain sceptical of the "can not" assertions, to keep working on the fantastic, in the face of ridicule and societal conflict.

There is an adage that speaks volumes to belief and doctrine.  The story goes, that a child wonders why the bottom third of a ham is discarded and not cooked.  There are many answers, but none of them seem to make sense.  Eventually, the child comes across a journal of a great grand parent, which mentions that the great grandmother had only one roaster, so when making a ham roast, had to cut off the bottom third so it could fit the roaster.  Our take away is, just because something is the way it is, just because we believe something right now, does not mean that is the only way.  That innovation and advancement is achieved effectively by having no assumptions about what can or can not be done, but simply by being open to possibilities.