That doesn't make it rational. There are many instinctual behaviors that are self-destructive and irrational.
Believing in god isn't self-destructive. People who believe in god rate themselves as happier and tend to live longer. There's an evolutionary basis for having faith in something and being a spiritual individual. It's very rational. Rational doesn't mean something has to be true. It just means there has to be a strong justification and reasoning behind a thought.
If he did use Dragon, that's a bit strange. I'm pretty sure Dragon is a representation of good fortune, greatness, power in many Asian culture. Maybe, but because our DNA can, I think carry more than just physical attributes. I think it is probably simple. Human are with very flaw reason and logic and easily hardened beliefs. And those may be carried over from previous lifes - this isn't that far fetched though. Our ancestor respond to their environment and their gene (that best respond to the environment) get passed on. There is always something passed on from previous generation, not just physical, but emotional tendencies, reasoning and logic ability from previous generation. If believing in a powerful deity helps with survival, it gets passed on.
Why must it be explained? We exist. It doesn't matter why, it matters that it does. Our existence is self-evident. I agree that those always looking for answers will die unsatisfied, but not resorting to blind faith doesn't mean you as a result will suffer from insatiable hunger of curiosity for the unexplained.
Just saying you can't rationally explain existence, because existence is inherently irrational. Given that we all have to face death, the belief in a god gives purpose to life and helps people cope with the irrationality and cold reality of death. I am just saying that believing in god is a very rational thing to do given what we know. While I am an atheist, I would never claim someone's belief in god to be irrational.
Don't forget that conservatives were against fracking because of the environmental destruction witnessed in that Matt Damon movie.
Its understandable why people turn to religion, but it doesn't make it rational. Its rational to accept death, your own morality, and the fact that you won't exist past your time on Earth. Its irrational to live a life of delusion.
I'm not one to give credence to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, but when the Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog chimes in, I immediately take its assertions as Gospel.
And if it's true, the folks that manipulate the data is unethical and yes, anti-Science. But that's the thing with Science. Errors (intentional or not) will be phased out. The UK dr that make the claim MMR vaccine causes autism is a recent example.
next time try reading the article 'This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.'
You act like there is a conspiracy by scientists to defraud the world. Do you work for an oil company?
When you say it's understandable why people turn to religion - you are basically saying that it is rational. That's what rational means.
There is definitely a motivated self interested for an outcome. And as often the case, when an industry is threatened by the outcome of science, it tends to try to shape the science. If you don't think this happens, then you might want to research the Tobacco Industry, the Pesticides Industry, and even the Auto Industry.
I would say oil companies funding certain "think" tanks to dissuade the American public that carbon emissions from human consumption of oil does affects climate in an impactful way is a assertion based on reason and evidence. Is the assertion testable? If I were to look at certain affluent and prevalent climate change deniers can I look up who is usually funding them? Yes. Now, are they usually energy companies? Yes... A conclusion can be made that Oil companies are being more disingenuous to the public than scientists are. I find it odd that you would frame the question in such a manner that has an obvious answer yet it seems as if you will find my answer surprising.
Yes....and that's true for both, if they were to stop supporting the idea of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change their research funding would dry up in a heartbeat. That's absolutely the only reason their research is funded as well as it is and they know it. Why ignore the motivated self interest of one side while harping on the motivated self interest of the other?
Are you actually suggesting that climate science is obsolete if climate change is obsolete? Are you suggesting that there is nothing more to climate science than climate change? Are you actually that dense?
