Will Science Eventually Replace Religion?
Im watching the YouTube video Magnetars: Neutron Stars but Scarier!1 The video describes how stars fused hydrogen, what happens when the hydrogen fuel runs out, how the electrons are forced to unite with the protons to form neutrons, etc. It occurred to me the vast amount of human knowledge that underlies what was said: the astronomy and cosmology and the atomic physics.
Science has an enormous story to tell, the entirety of which no single human being can ever hear. A person could spend several lifetimes learning physics or chemistry or biology or mathematics or any scientific field and still have hardly covered a hundredth of the fields content. Just mastering Einsteins theory of general relativity might take someone a significant chunk of their life.
Religion, on the other hand, is the same old, same old. The crucifixion of Jesus. The raising of Lazarus. The loaves and the fishes. I heard those stories as a child. They are still around today, same as ever. Same as they were a thousand years ago. Religious people may spin those facts as an advantage. See, they might say, the unending power of Gods Word. Indeed, his word shall endure forever. But the foundational religious texts are still a finite resource.
And the texts are an eroding resource. Few people today believe that there really once was a garden with a talking serpent and a naked couple. Most Christians ignore the teaching of Jesus that disease is the result of demons and sin. Once, scripture told us the origin of the universe, the origin of the rainbow (after Noahs flood), and that Jesus would return soon. Today, scripture has been replaced more and more by secular knowledge based on sciences cycle of hypothesize, experiment, assimilate new facts, make a new hypothesis. Its not difficult to see the trend.
Of course, religion still has quite a hold on humanity. Much of humanity live within an easy trip to some church, temple, synagogue, mosque, etc. And I dont mean to say it shouldnt. Religion gives people something that science doesnt. I dont see science eliminating religion. But I think it can purify religion of untruths. (No, a worldwide flood never happened; deal with it.) What remained would be like the gold refined from tons of ore.
But science has problems of its own. Weapons of mass destruction. Environmental damage. Science knows how to do: how to make a computer, an aircraft, bombs. But it sometimes lacks the wisdom of what to do and what to leave undone.
It seems that science is in need of religions values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.
Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on sciences trajectory.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRPjgKs-aw4
Science has an enormous story to tell, the entirety of which no single human being can ever hear. A person could spend several lifetimes learning physics or chemistry or biology or mathematics or any scientific field and still have hardly covered a hundredth of the fields content. Just mastering Einsteins theory of general relativity might take someone a significant chunk of their life.
Religion, on the other hand, is the same old, same old. The crucifixion of Jesus. The raising of Lazarus. The loaves and the fishes. I heard those stories as a child. They are still around today, same as ever. Same as they were a thousand years ago. Religious people may spin those facts as an advantage. See, they might say, the unending power of Gods Word. Indeed, his word shall endure forever. But the foundational religious texts are still a finite resource.
And the texts are an eroding resource. Few people today believe that there really once was a garden with a talking serpent and a naked couple. Most Christians ignore the teaching of Jesus that disease is the result of demons and sin. Once, scripture told us the origin of the universe, the origin of the rainbow (after Noahs flood), and that Jesus would return soon. Today, scripture has been replaced more and more by secular knowledge based on sciences cycle of hypothesize, experiment, assimilate new facts, make a new hypothesis. Its not difficult to see the trend.
Of course, religion still has quite a hold on humanity. Much of humanity live within an easy trip to some church, temple, synagogue, mosque, etc. And I dont mean to say it shouldnt. Religion gives people something that science doesnt. I dont see science eliminating religion. But I think it can purify religion of untruths. (No, a worldwide flood never happened; deal with it.) What remained would be like the gold refined from tons of ore.
But science has problems of its own. Weapons of mass destruction. Environmental damage. Science knows how to do: how to make a computer, an aircraft, bombs. But it sometimes lacks the wisdom of what to do and what to leave undone.
It seems that science is in need of religions values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.
Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on sciences trajectory.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRPjgKs-aw4
Comments (231)
Religion offers no such explanations to natural phenomena apart from the claim that the world was created by God.
Science can reject the claim of religion if it has an alternative explanation to the cause of the created world or take the agnostic stance as it should when its uncertain.
Yet science should not seek God for it would lose its utility, in addition to probably not finding God anyway.
In general the mindset of the atheist is ignorant but maybe thats how God wanted them. As a believer I find it hard to reconcile their stupidity to God it must be wilful then on the part of the atheist, yet there is in them the wish to believe. If God does not exist for them they will wait for some kind of super-intelligence to be created by man, essentially God, you can see such speculations in action between the passionate atheists in this forum, imbuing such a future intelligence with all sorts of god like qualities.
Or aliens, atheists love them aliens.
If everyone says "down" there will invariably be people who profess "up". This is human nature.
However, from a second, separate angle as to why science will never replace religion, science doesnt explain/prove ethics. And ethics dictates the limits and usage of scientific method. So religions focusing on philosophising/contemplating ethics are outside the purview of science but are useful/informative - as they study ethics/morality and benevolence etc. Therefore science could not abolish such endeavours.
From a third perspective, religions - unlike science - can be created at any moment in time. Religions die off. New ones are formulated. And new religion have the potential to embrace and adopt current scientific knowledge in their dogmas/doctrines.
So no, science will never replace religions. I for one am glad of that because they are merely different flavours of reality ice-cream. Both have their unique advantages and disadvantages for people. Faith often provides more comfort to a person than facts. And so faith has an important use.
Between them they enable freedom of an individual to focus on either knowledge from proof or wisdom from subjective intuition/experience.
Not true. Not all religions have a God-head - buddhism, taoism, jainism etc. This is such a common misconception about religions. Abrahamic religions should not be conflated with "religion" or "spirituality" as a whole set.
Many religions and spiritual practices have parallels with scientific concepts. There is considerable overlap on numerous occasion, those overlaps and parallels should not be ignored, as likely they point towards the same fundamental truths.
Some religions then, mostly the Abrahamic, keep forgetting about the fringe religions out there. Theres Scientology too if anyones interested, youd have to have deep pockets though.
In any case the scientific mindset and the religious one are not mutually exclusive, you can be both a Christian and a Scientist, in fact some of the best ones have been such as Newton, Pascal, Riemann, Lord Kelvin the list goes on.
Haha agreed. That one made me laugh.
I agree in the sense that religions and spiritualities are innumeral. And to be a true "atheist" one must not believe in "all" religions/spiritualities - including those that have come to pass, those that are current, and those yet to be established. This is absurd. And i find religions and spiritualities to be incredibly rich and diverse. Many might appeal to any single individual, if they were simply aware of them.
Which is why at most one can be "agnostic" lest the claim they have full knowledge from a scientific perspective of the entire universe, its origin, meaning/purpose, and end.
I absolutely agree. Bravo. And i think this is an exemplary trait in such a person as they are open minded, unbiased, curious and receptive to any and all possible explanations for existence, hopefully as a beautifully elegant synthesis/relationship between all of the tools of understanding available - like science and intuition/instinct/trust from the realm of non-objective.
And of course tolerant too.
On the other hand, both disciplines tend to confront usually. A scientific is always in continuous skepticism, but a believer believes in God blindly. It is not about replace one or another but how they repel each other. Don't expect an absorb because humans always have questions, so religion and science will be there as a candle, illuminating our uncertainty
Absolutely. A round of applause for this. If science deals with raw knowledge and thus power/control, the i would expect/hope religions or spiritualities deal with how to use such knowledge/power/control to good or ethical ends.
Religion and science are not actually at odds with one another. At least they dont have to be anyways. They simply deal with different domains of the whole (reality). Science discovers the reason, and spirituality ideally compliments it with the "ought-to's" - the ideology, the best applications of reason going forth.
Again, as i said earlier, not all religions have a God. Buddhism, taoism, jainism and many more do not have a Godhead. We must not assume that religion automatically means there is a blindly followed/obeyed God.
Religion and spirituality deals with the subjective. Our emotions, feelings, intuitions and instincts about what is "right" and "wrong". Science does not concern itself with the "use" of knowledge towards rights or wrongs (ethical application) but rather the attainment of knowledge in the first place.
You could also spend many lifetimes studying just Christian theology and not read a fraction of all that has been written, let alone doing an in depth comparison with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, or historical religions. As with science, there are constantly new developments in theology. While it doesn't move as quickly as science most of the time, at times it does, i.e. there have been multiple periods where numerous new sects have formed with radically different interpretations of Christianity over a short period.
In the Abrahamic tradition the core texts have remained largely the same for a long period, but even this isn't absolute. The early church had myriad new "books of the Bible," that were ultimately deemed non-canoncial by orthodox Christianity. Judaism had something similar with the deuterocannonical books that show up in the Targum but were later removed from the Canon or the Books of Enoch, which circulated widely but are only canonical in Ethiopian Judaism and Christianity.
The Reformation saw several books removed from the Protestant Canon (although they were still included in copies of the Bible and read in churches until they were cut for printing costs in the 19th century, strangely given American Evangelical antagonism to the texts now). The Book of Mormon was "revealed' relatively recently and new, quite different sects of Christianity have emerged since the 1800s, e.g. the entire Charismatic movement.
The Sethian Gnostics rewrote Genesis such that the God creating the material realm was a demonic figure names Yaldaboath and Jesus gives mankind the fruit of knowledge with the aeon Wisdom.
Few people believed that in 100-500AD when Church doctrine was formed. Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, etc. all interpreted these allegorically. To be sure, the less educated probably did tend to think of these more as factual records of discrete events, but the Church has a very long history of allegorical, philosophical, and esoteric interpretations of Scripture. Paul's letters show a man well versed in, and in many ways accepting of Greek philosophy, so this is not a stretch. Pagels and others have argued that John is essentially a Gnostics gospel in some ways, Neo-Platonism and what it says about the general reality of all physical events, has been a part of Christianity since the very outset. A Catholic priest who was also a physicists developed the Big Bang Theory.
Fundementalist is a modern movement. Most Christians are not fundementalist. Fundementalists are given outsized weight in perceptions of Christianity in the Anglophone world because they are more common in America, more ostentatious in many ways about their theology, and because they are a much easier punching bag for people who want to attack Christianity or religion in general. Most Christians are not even Protestant, let alone Evangelical Protestants. Even in the US now, Roman Catholic is the largest denomination.
There is definitely plenty of development historically. The God of Hegel and Behemism more generally is extremely different from the God of fundementalism or even mainstream Lutheranism from which Boehme and Hegel emerged. Some theologies speak specifically to this historical progression. Most of the Bible is histories. God is said to demonstrate God's nature through history. This means that the message man needs to hear changes over time and so the faith changes. The rise of rationalism was celebrated by some Christians during the Enlightenment and the triumphs of science (and limitations) extolled by some Christians today (neo-Hegelians for instance).
If history is any guide, religion is sure to keep changing and also to stick around. It's been ubiquitous in every human society, and religious doubts are also at least as old as writing.
Because this isn't in the Bible and you would have to stretch it quite far to say that Jesus teaches this. Hence, it was never a major interpretation of disease, although it certainly did have more truck with people before disease was better understood.
I think it's also important to distinguish here between widely accepted doctrine/theology and the superstitions of the laity. Just because many people misunderstand quantum mechanics or have a naive understanding of science doesn't mean "science says x." Christianity has always had a leadership structure that vets teachings, as did Judaism before it, but that doesn't mean people don't have their own interpretations.
Jesus casts out demons but also heals illnesses. They are described in a distinctly different manner. The Epistles only mentioned healing of diseases, never exorcism. Throughout the Old Testament God is involved in disease, not Satan or demons.
Yes, those pesky fringe religions:
Do you know what the word fringe means ?
Buddhism does have a God: Brahmâ
If you do not want to call it as "God" is ok. But I disagree with the fact that they do not follow a divine deity blindly. This is the key of each religion: They understand and follow the morals and ethics of religion as a given. There is not critical thinking among them. Could you imagine a Buddhist questioning the four principles of Siddhartha?
If 15% is "fringe" then black Americans are a fringe race. If 7% is "fringe" then gay people are a fringe population.
Are they though? Is the slang of today the same as it was 10 years ago? Is the english of today the same as it was in Victorian times, or Shakespearean times, or further back yet still? Is any language static and exactly as it was thousands of years ago, with the same usage of words, the same context, the same culture, the same meaning of words and phrases?
Languages evolve. Exact meanings become corrupted over time.
Scripture is at most interpretative today, at worst completely lost/mis-translated. Every copy of the Bible/Torah/Quran etc is a lesser version of the previous due to human error/misunderstanding and general societal change. Just as when you repeatedly feed something printed back into the printer, the definition, the visibility of the text, is lost to imperfect reproduction. Loss of resolution.
There is need for updating the texts to become current/relevant to the modern day culture and level of knowledge. Luckily, i believe religions spoke of fundamental principles at their time of writing/inception, fundamentals which do not change over time, as they are fundamental/principled. Deep, resonating truths. Thus it is possible to find that truth again, but it relies on sense, on reasoning and logic. Not referring to something outdated and lost to time.
As much as Id enjoy arguing about the definitions of words on here, do you actually have anything to say about the OP?
Science-based explanations might gradually become simple & common enough to replace ancient bed-time stories, of how the world works, for the average Joe. But, as you implied, the material success of Science has been largely due to its focus on "how" facts, instead of "why" questions. Those perpetual philosophical issues are perspectival & interpretational, hence resistant to impersonal pragmatic nailed-down fixed facts.
Fortunately, some of us can make room in the same mind for both Hard Facts and Flexible Feelings. Perhaps though, as humans evolve into trans-human cyborgs, those animal emotions may gradually come under the rule of mathematical Logic*1. The ethical implications & evaluations of such an evolutionary leap have been explored in both academic philosophical tomes, and in popular entertainment forms. For example, uber-logical Mr. Spock & Commander Data, still seem to benefit from association with their more emotional & humane Captains. As long as world events are complex enough to hide their mathematical foundation, some problems may be better addressed with get-er-done motivation than with abstract structural analysis.
Since the un-amicable divorce of Pragmatic Science from Aspirational Religion, both seem to be gradually moving toward a fragile reconciliation. What form that accommodation will take remains to be seen, perhaps in the not-too-distant future. :smile:
*1. A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE :
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. ___David Hume
But when was this not true? Versus from Numbers carved in silver in proto-Hebraic predate the Hebrew language. The story of Noah, include the phrase "two by two," is on a Sumerian tablet that is among the oldest pieces of writing ever found.
We no longer think many of the books of Prophets were written all by the titular prophet (Ezekiel being a notable exception). Isiah appears to have been a collection of sayings of an Isiah that took final form from other works over centuries. We see differences in OT documents dating from before Jesus' time. I'm not sure if there ever was a one true text. It changes less now, but it still changes with new translations and archeological finds.
We lose some context, for example, none of us speak Greek. But the Greek speakers in the 5th century all thought Paul wrote Hebrews, which changes the context. We now think this is very likely a different author who knew Paul or Paul's teachings, so we may have gained a better reference frame in some sense.
I've watched Christian/atheist discussions (for example, the 'atheist experience' videos on YouTube) where time and time again the atheist knew more about religion than the Christian, perhaps because many atheists were once believers who bothered to critically investigate their beliefs.
For example, a belief in the big bang isn't much more rational than the belief in a creation myth.
For sure. Scientism is definitely a thing. Now, there is a good argument to be made that scientism isn't science, and that science doesn't deal with key aspects religion does, e.g. ontology. But I think there is also a good argument to be made that this is a No True Scottman fallacy given some of the world's most famous scientists write best sellers in the science category that are substantially or even mostly about ontology, the origins and nature of the world, or make explicit claims about morality and moral realism.
:pray: Let's hope not.
.
IME, science is to experimental medicines as religion is to ritual placebos/nocebos. The latter tricks many into ignoring their symptoms whereas the former contributes to the health of most. However, philosophy what we do with (or practice) either of them often promotes 'proper diet & exercise' as a daily fitness regime "a way of life" which cultivates / reinforces flourishing (i.e. well-being).
Quoting Benj96
Just as astronomy has not replaced astrology, planetology has not replaced flat earthism, evolution has not replaced creationism and cognitive neuroscience has not replaced spiritualism (i.e. belief in ghosts/souls), I suspect modern technosciences will never totally replace supernatural religions as such. :eyes: :mask:
[quote=Arthur C. Clarke][i]It may be that our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create him.[/quote]
I think, however, when technoscience (e.g. "AGI" + nano/bio/neurotech) provides what every "God" ever worshipped by h. sapiens spectacularly fails to provide a reliable lifespan-healthspan-brainspan-youthspan extending techniques (e.g. immorbity therapy) for making death a medically elective procedure that will cause, all things being equal, 'religious observance' as we know it today to shrink by orders of magnitude to barely fringe subcultures without it ever disappearing completely because, as a species, we are congenital 'magical thinkers' (i.e. confabulators). For our immortal descendents, science will be 'the last man standing' compared to religion. My guess is that their (or "AI-human" hybrid's) spirituality will recognizably consist of "Spinoza's God" acosmism (sub specie aeternitatis) and/or pandeism (sub specie durationis), not "pantheism". :fire:
Belief in the big bang, a theory supported by solid evidence, for example, the cosmic background radiation,isn't much more rational than the belief in a creation myth, for example, the Genesis stories which include a talking serpent? I have to disagree.
My guess is the chance of both being wrong is vastly greater than either being right, so what's the point of believing?
From a brief gloss of other comments, I would agree that religion is quite heterogenous. I am not even sure what is the clear unifying aspect of all religions. Though perhaps most are based on mystical experiences or encounters with beings or Being other than our own being as humans. In this case, I don't think science will replace religion, instead science will merge with religion and synthesize to form the single understanding of Reality as it is. A replacement of religion implies the utter annihilation of mystical experiences, at least in the majority. Yet in so far mystical experiences are experiences like any other, they will eventually be tackled by science as well, if science can be purified from some dogmatic assumptions as well such as materialism, or at least shallow materialism.
They now have conferences in many other locations and a large number of recorded lectures and seminars on Youtube. Their web homepage can be found at https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ and on youtube https://www.youtube.com/@scienceandnonduality
Given the shrinking of religions (despite their popularity still amongst certain societies and subcultures) I suspect religions will disappear (unless they can escape literalism and evolve). Certainly for many millions of people and gods and goddesses are irrelevant. That number is not shrinking.
But we can't underestimate the fear people have of uncertainty, not to mention technology and science and how a retreat into creationism, tradition and superstition - call it what you will - may be highly appealing as a kind refuge from the perceived troubling present.
I don't think science is the replacement as it does different things to religion. But science has done a far better job in explaining most of the things religion used to explain. For some folk this is enough.
Morality will generally take care of itself - even most religious folk don't really follow religious morality and in Christian cultures most of theists can't even name more than 3 or 4 of the ten commandments.
As for Christianity, I think Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong (my favourite, now deceased, religious writer) is probably on the money:
1. The Bible attempts to look 10,000 years into the past, not 13.8 billion. Google to see how Christians calculate the age.
2. Science really looks. It uses sophisticated instruments (like the LHC or the James Webb) to gather data and then uses logic, reason, and math to makes sense of the data. The Bible does its looking by repeating ancient imagined tales mixed with a bit of history.
Functionally the same? No.
Science and religion are working in opposite directions.
So science will not replace religion. But it would be an excellent development if ethics did.
:up: :up:
Placebo could also be considered behaviour, beliefs and attitudes that confer a positive health outcome. In that sense they don't "trick" anyone so much as it is likely certain behaviours and attitudes are better for someone's health.
For example, not being psychologically stressed about your health, means you have less cortisol flowing, and thus stronger immunity against infection. In this case we see how attitudes directly effect the functioning and resilience of the organism to disease.
If religions and spiritualities confer peace of mind to a person, that has some net positive effect on their relationship to their body and thus the functioning of their body/it's health. No tricks, just reason.
What would say about a new religion of spiritual belief that exemplifies ethics to the point that they are synonymous? Or even more exaggerated a case, one that furthers our ethical understandings beyond what they currently are.
Its usually the specific arbitrary parts of religious dogmas that restrict religions ability to be ethical. However new simpler dogmas can be created that may include not only ethics but scientific principles, as well as an origin explanation and the other facets of realities largest questions and mysteries.
Not much.
The point would be to replace dogmas with problem solving.
Quoting Benj96
The "trick" is the belief that a placebo "cures" an ailment without active medicinal ingredients (ergo the placebo effect). Ignoring symptoms, however comforting, only allows the untreated ailment to get worse. IME, religion is mostly used as a placebo consolation for existential dread as well as cultural and/or historical and/or scientific ignorance (i.e. phobias & bigotries).
Yes, Scientism seems to be a vague-but-firm belief system based on modern "real-world" revelations instead of ancient ideal-world myths (handed-down from primitive priests). On this forum, true-believers in Scientism act just like religious faithful when their core beliefs are challenged. For example, instead of philosophical arguments, they may give you book, chapter & verse of a technical tome to serve as the authority for a specific belief, or they may just tell you to read some abstruse text by a presumed expert (secular priest), leaving you educate yourself in The Truth, and out of the vale of willful Ignorance. Does that sound like a bible-thumper to you?
In the 20th century, Quantum physics undermined some of the basic assumptions of Classical Physics, by discovering that Nature does not present absolute Truth, but statistical Uncertainty. So, those of us not specially-trained must accept, on faith, the "facts" of those arcane experts. Yet, there is no profane pope to serve as the judge of last resort for contentious questions*1. So Scientism faithful are left to their own devices to determine Ethical & Ontological answers to philosophical questions, that are irrelevant to physical & mechanical Science. Maybe that's why they post on a Philosophy Forum instead of Science Site.
Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. So, they may only agree on one Fact : "god" has nothing to do with it. Hence, their doctrine is simply classical Newtonian mechanics,with Random Chance in place of Newton's clockwork designer. If that works for ya, you may not need philosophical reasoning to fill-in the blanks of scientific & religious faith. The rest of us must keep an open mind, while searching for the elusive butterfly of truth. :smile:
*1. And their hypothetical Bible is referred to as "Settled Science". Is there any such thing as a final fact in science?
Sorry but :rofl: ...
This is ambiguous. Who was it took the Catholic bible literally - the anti-catholic fundamentalist? How perverse of them. Or did the anti-catholic fundamentalist think that Catholics think that Catholics do not need a priestly cast to interpret the Bible correctly? Again, how odd.
In any case, when will you be dropping that fundamentalists buttressing so evident in your thinking?
You think it would be a good thing if ethics were based on faith and a social hierarchy?
I say let religion die.
No.
Where did that come from?
What if it won't die? Kill it?
Not sure this is right. Scientism says only physics can answer all questions and that the scientific method is a pathway to truth and understanding how the world works.
Science, on the other hand would say we can make reliable models of the world based on the best information we have available at a given time. But these models are tentative and change as we learn more. There is no scientific method as such, just reliable or unreliable methods of rational or evidential enquiry.
Killing people because of their beliefs is what religious folks do.
Yes. In retrospect, the irony of my fundamentalist Christian upbringing, is that it rejected the authority of Church & Pope, but accepted the authority of a book compiled & edited by that same organization. Indeed "how odd". For the record, Gnomon does not place credence in the "holy" book of both creeds.
Regarding the necessity for a "priestly caste", I'll simply refer you to a fundamental concept of Protestantism : the priesthood of all believers*1. If you don't come from a Fundamentalist background, a lot of these doctrinal paradoxes will seem "odd".
I assume the "who was it?" question was rhetorical, so I won't go into a history lesson. But if you interpret my comments, on this thread and others, as "fundamentalist buttressing", you have completely missed the point . . . nay, reversed it. Perhaps you are confusing Gnomon with someone else.
If the "Catholic Bible" comment was "ambiguous", that may be because I was making an analogy to a science-based, instead of bible-based, alt-religion*2. The Fundamentalists, and indeed most Protestants, accepted the "faith only" Pauline version*3 of Christianity, while officially rejecting the "idol (icon) worship" and "salvific works" that emerged within the Imperial Church of Rome. To be clear, the "who?" is Christian Fundamentalists on one hand, and Atheist adherents of Scientism on the other. Both seeking higher authority for their favorite beliefs.
Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? I don't stand on either side. :smile:
*1. Priesthood of all believers :
The doctrine asserts that all humans have access to God through Christ, the true high priest, and thus do not need a priestly mediator. This introduced a democratic element in the functioning of the church that meant all Christians were equal.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/priesthood-of-all-believers
*2. Modern Alternative to Religion :
Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. So, they may only agree on one Fact : "god" has nothing to do with it. ___Gnomon, from this thread
*3. Not by faith only :
James 2:24 : You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
Note -- A direct contradiction of Paul's doctrine. Just one of many discrepancies in the "Catholic" Bible.
I was merely pointing-out that there is no authorized compendium of "settled science" to serve as the Bible of Scientism. As you implied, Science, as a dynamic body of knowledge, is not static, but constantly evolving. That's why classical Newtonian Mechanics is no longer The Ultimate Authority on Physics. As soon as a fact reaches consensus, a new fact emerges to cast doubt on it. Ironically, even the Bible of Abrahamic traditions has evolved, both in fact and philosophy over the ages. That's why complex re-interpretations are necessary to harmonize the discordant notes.
Adherents of Scientism on this forum make very confident assertions about how the world works, despite the commonly accepted opinion that, although Quantum Math is more accurate than Newtonian Math, it is ultimately grounded in Randomness & Uncertainty. So an open & flexible mind is necessary for navigating the "pathways to truth". Einstein seemed to have such an adaptive mind, so if he was around today, I think he would grudging admit that "god does play dice with the universe", but he still wouldn't like it. :smile:
Has Newtonian physics been disproven? :
It was published in 1687 in the book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica written by Sir Isaac Newton. Newton's Law of Gravity has been declared wrong; however, scientists prefer to continue with Einstein's theory of General Relativity still showing suspicion in his theory too.
https://happenings.lpu.in/newtons-law-of-gravity-proven-wrong/
Classical vs Quantum Physics :
Newton's laws are used to explain our daily life while at the atomic level, they fail to explain the motion and nature of atoms and that is where quantum mechanics come in.
https://sherpa-online.com/forum/thread/physics/gcse/newtons-laws/were-newtons-laws-superseded-by-quantum-mechanics
Did Einstein oppose quantum mechanics?
Closer examination, though, reveals that Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics or its indeterminism, although he did thinkfor solid scientific reasonsthat the randomness could not be a fundamental feature of nature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-einstein-really-thought-about-quantum-mechanics/
I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction.
Yes. I only use the derogatory term "scientism" in order to make that same distinction. :smile:
Quoting Gnomon
I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism.
Given what you say here, can you demonstrate the single source of authority on The Truth? I suspect a Noble Price might be waiting if you can do this.
Why not.
But my point was missed, so I'll put it again, more directly. There are those who leave one fundamentalism only to find another, who putting down one bible, choose another. Such folk might miss the distinction makes.
How else would one go about killing a religion?
I think this is often the case. Epistemic humility is hard to maintain when you flee one thing looking for truth and find another that, at the least, seems more promising than what you left. Falliblism is in short supply, apparently.
I agree that your "single source" is stipulated in the definition of Scientism. But "Science" is not an actual thing, not a centralized institution, or a book of wisdom. Instead, it's an ideal that scientists are supposed to aspire to. Likewise "settled science" assumes a unified consensus. Yet consensus in science remains an unattainable state of perfect agreement among independent thinkers. There is no central authority to settle all disagreements.
For centuries the Classical Mechanics of Newton was as close to a scientific Bible as we've ever had. But the advent of non-mechanical Quantum Mechanics turned a lot of that "settled science" upside down. Consequently, scientists argued among themselves about how to interpret their empirical findings. And even Einstein couldn't depend on his aura of authority to overrule the Copenhagen Consensus.
So, my comment was not belittling the ideals of Empirical Truth in Science, but merely referring to the absence of an actual central authority for Truth : an Imperial Church, or absolute Pope, or authorized Bible. Do you agree that there is nothing in Science or Scientism corresponding to those centralized Authorities? The bottom line here is that if Science had a Bible or Central Authority -- to whom all must bow -- it would soon become a fossilized belief system : a religion. :smile:
Authority in Science :
[i]The demotion of authority in science has many roots:
The fact that results are not taken seriously until they have been replicated in independent experiments by people one may assume will not collude in covering up sloppy or fraudulent results.
The vital connection between theory and results. Shaping theories generalizes specific results and allows experiments using different methods to test the same claim, liberates the outcome from the biases of any individual, and ultimately creates a basis for distinct scientific fields (biology and chemistry are different fields not because of different names but because of different theories).
Statistical and mathematical analyses that are verifiable in their own right and that estimate the probability that a result arose by chance.
The innate skepticism and high standards of the scientists who read the result, e.g. the default assumption that an idea is false until and unless there is evidence to support it.[/i]
https://arachnoid.com/reader_exchanges/authority_in_science.html
A crisis of authority in scientific discourse :
Scientific discourse has typically been considered what philosopher of language Mikhail Bakhtin, Holquist and Emerson (1981, p. 343) termed an authoritative discourse,a discourse that binds us, quite independent of any power it might have to persuade us internally, whose hegemony is traditionally a priori, unquestioned. However, within the public realm, that authority is in crisis.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11422-020-09989-1
You've got my "no authority" assertion turned around backward. I said "there is no single authority in Science". Nor should there be. So how could you challenge me to demonstrate the existence of what I just denied? :smile:
But I still wonder if you appreciate the difference between science and scientism.
Quoting Gnomon
No. You got this wrong too. You originally used this as a poor definition of scientism not science.
Here:
Quoting Gnomon
Note again - you used the word scientism. As I have pointed out several times now scientism is certain about science as a single source of authority on truth and how the world works.
And then (as a separate matter) I asked the follow up question; can you cite any example of a single authority on the Truth? Since you seemed to be suggesting that this was a type of misplaced skepticism, I wonder if there is an alternative you can point too?
But perhaps this discussion has become too complex and you are a bit lost in it? I understand, this sometimes happens to me.
Let's not waste any more time on this. I wish to hear no more about scientism. I am not interested in pursuing this any further. Take care.
One philosophical point to consider in all this is the implication of David Hume's 'is /ought' problem and the difficulty of deriving the latter from the former.
I think one of the implications of his observation is that moral frameworks within which values are oriented are extrinsic to science. As it happens, due to the cultural context within which modern scientific method developed, there is, as it were, a residual moral framework that originated in the broader Christian worldview which had previously characterised Western culture, but such a framework can't be derived from science as such. There are no good or bad chemical reactions, simply things that just happen. And if you want to see what a modern, technologically and scientifically advanced culture that doesn't share the same historical orientation towards human rights is like, look no further than the PRC, where individual rights and social minorities are ruthlessly forced back into the imposed consensus.
One problem is, that 'religion' has itself become a kind of cliché or stereotype, the ossified remnants of myths and motifs that no longer possess vitality or relevance. The culture has outgrown its religious tropes. But think about this: we are surely approaching a period when renunciation ought to be valued because capitalist economics, based on unending growth, are nearing or surpassing their sustainable limits. And within what kind of cultural framework would a renunciate attitude, eschewing material gain and seeking the cultivation of wisdom, make sense?
Here I'm reminded of the famous counter-cultural classic, Small is Beautiful, by E F Schumacher, published in the early 70's on the basis of what he called Buddhist Economics. He believed that conventional Western economics was based on a flawed view of human nature, one that saw people as inherently selfish and materialistic. He believed that this view led to a focus on economic growth and the accumulation of wealth at the expense of other values, such as social justice, environmental sustainability, and spiritual well-being. He argued that Buddhist economics was based on an alternative view of human nature, one that recognized our interdependence with others and with the natural world. He believed that this view led to an economic system that was more equitable, sustainable, and in tune with our spiritual and emotional needs, working with nature rather than against it, and of valuing human relationships and the quality of life over material possessions. It also emphasizes the importance of mindfulness, compassion, and non-violence in economic decision-making.
Fifty years later, not much has come of his ideas, sad to say, but I bring them up, because they embody of kind of religious philosophy, in that the Buddhist worldview still incorporates a soteriology (a doctrine of liberation from the world). And I don't believe that science, or scientific naturalism, offers any such horizon of being, however conceived. (I sometimes wonder if dreams of interstellar colonization represent a kind of sublimated longing for Heaven.) In any case, for a Buddhist commentary on same, I will refer to a lecture given by translator-monk Bhikkhu Bodhi A Buddhist Response to Contemporary Dilemmas of Human Existence. It was a keynote lecture at a conference, so is a dense piece, and quite lengthy, but I find myself in substantial agreement with a lot of it.
[quote=Bhikkhu Bodhi]The triumph of materialism in the sphere of cosmology and metaphysics had the profoundest impact on human self-understanding. The message it conveyed was that the inward dimensions of our existence, with its vast profusion of spiritual and ethical concerns, is mere adventitious superstructure. The inward is reducible to the external, the invisible to the visible, the personal to the impersonal. Mind becomes a higher order function of the brain, the individual a node in a social order governed by statistical laws. All humankind's ideals and values are relegated to the status of illusions: they are projections of biological drives, sublimated wish-fulfillment. Even ethics, the philosophy of moral conduct, comes to be explained away as a flowery way of expressing personal preferences. Its claim to any objective foundation is untenable, and all ethical judgments become equally valid. The ascendancy of relativism is complete.[/quote]
However, I'll also add as a counter to that, that there is a new kind of dialogue emerging between science and spirituality which eschews both religious dogma and scientific materialism, often inspired on the one hand by environmentalism and 'systems science' and even by the idealistic trend arising from 'the new physics':
So the entire field is in a period of intense flux, as it ought to be, considering the tumultous nature of today's world. What is emerging is no longer the hard-edged materialistic science of the later modern period, nor the cliches and time-worn tropes of historical religion, but something that absorbs but exceeds both.
yep, folks ethics often improve when they leave their religion. Again, there is the inability of some folk to comprehend an ethic not based on god.
or truth
I honestly don't see the point of that, other than control, and control is the basic point of religion. It would essentially be replacing religion. I say let it die and DON'T TRY TO REPLACE IT.
Is there a useful thread here on post modernism and truth? I would be keen to read something accessible on the subject.
Religion has effectively died out amongst large groups of people in the west. The kinds of religion that is growing widely around the world - evangelical Christianity (in Asia and Africa) and fundamentalist Islam are often so shallow that they scarcely count as religions the way we used to think of them. Doctrines waver and bend and almost no one knows any scripture or reads the holy books. I was talking to some Chinese former evangelicals and in their view it's just about professing belief and makings things up using a jumble of terminology (a bit like some people on this forum seem to do :wink:) sin, Satan and the love of Christ.
I support those atheist evangelists who help people to deconstruct from fundamentalist religion. I think this is a worthy thing to do and I have donated money. There seems to be a lot of folk wanting to leave and leaving behind the festering hatreds of fundamentalism and evangelical religion and they are looking for support in their emerging skepticism and critical thinking.
:clap: Me to. (Although I would replace 'atheist evDEVILists,' with secular humanist. I will continue to support such folks in anyway I can!)
Anyway heres Louis Pasteur:
Quoting IP060903
Quoting Wayfarer
Quoting RogueAI
Quoting Tzeentch
Quoting praxis
Quoting Wayfarer
Science and religion are two different things and there's no point in pitching them against each other because I'd argue that is a misunderstanding of the psychological function and inner workings of religion.
There's the argument that if humanity loses all knowledge about the world and history, people will eventually find out the same things in science, but religion will be whatever delusion that gets invented next.
Science is about facts and the pursuit of facts, it's always aimed at that goal, to explain and create a foundational and fundamental understanding of everything.
Religion is about comfort. Every human being is born into this world having grown-ups caring for them or at least having power over them. It's the first and most basic knowledge or experience humans have and seeing as how the first years in life tremendously dictate the psychology of a person, that experience is a powerful reality that isn't easily changed just because we're grown-ups.
This experience makes most people cling to nostalgia or another system that comforts them. Either by letting some authority care for them, be it a state or some power figure, or in this case, God or a pantheon. When people have grown to not need parents, or rebel against them, they are thrown into a world where having freedom and a lack of power controlling them can feel like pure horror. In Sartre's words: we are condemned to freedom.
The only way to escape the feeling of this overwhelming responsibility is to invent or surrender to a higher power in some actual or fictional form.
So, to answer the question, Science will not replace religion, because religion is an emergent form out of a basic psychological dilemma for people. The only way to change this fact is to reform how people view the responsibility and power over their own lives.
The problem with this is that it requires finding a meaning to existence that is more real than imaginary. And with nature and the universe's inherent meaninglessness in the perspective of our existence, that is a tall order.
The solution, and the thing that would eventually remove the need for religion, would be to find a strategy for meaning that is dislocated from religious fantasy. Something that can make people find meaning in the world and universe that we already have.
Then there's the case of rituals. There are hints in psychology that humans need rituals, or gravitate towards them all the time. We could argue that something like OCD is a form of "ritual disorder", in which rituals have taken over the mind and stress levels increase too much when trying to abandon them.
Rituals are a form of pattern behavior. We move into a pattern in order to soothe a chaotic mind. It could be that "rituals" are as important to us as sleep. A way to organize our emotions and thoughts.
So a second solution is to dislocate rituals from religion. There are many traditions today that don't require any religious ideas. Or they are based on old religious ideas that have been abandoned. Swedish Midsommar is filled with rituals that have nothing to do with its roots or that have forgotten its roots.
Then there's the case of "awe". Religion is often filled with awe over existence. But this is also something that can be dislocated from religion since it's not required to have faith in a fantasy to feel awe.
Awe can be felt in front of nature itself, in front of the universe as it is. The scientific concepts of how reality works, together with what we don't know about reality, what is outside the universe, etc. do not need to have less impact than a fantasy about it. We don't have to invent something to explain it in order to feel awe. People also feel awe standing at the foot of Mount Everest, or on the edge of the Grand Canyon, or seeing the rim of the milky way in a place without light pollution.
The only reason why religion still persists is that the work needed to build up these alternatives demands a lot of time and energy from the individual and society. We need more non-religious rituals and social and non-social traditions. We need a focus on the awe of nature and the universe as it is, and celebrate existence for what it is, not for what it's not. We need a focus on meaning and better guidance and mentorship from being a child to being an adult.
Science won't replace religion, because religion is based on a psychological need that cannot be met by science, only by a different way of life and a different way of how society works.
Religion has a totally other function than science and the idea that science will replace religion is based on the idea that religion has an equal measure of explaining the universe, which it clearly does not when looking at the track record. That is an argument that already accepts religion on equal terms, an argument from within the fantasy, not objectively studying these two things.
Maybe Pasteur should have said - 'A little or a lot of science won't necessarily replace the supernatural in the minds of some.' And we can't argue with that. :wink:
If that is indeed the case, I mean even Einstein who is considered one of the greats of theoretical physics said something like god doesnt play dice or something to that effect. Is that a confession of doubt there ? Was he even a fully fledged atheist?
The list of scientists, and I talk about the ones with the biggest influence or impact in their respective fields outnumber the atheist by a ratio of at least 2:1. Historically speaking its even greater.
This might be skewed in the modern sense as all you need to be called a scientist these days is a degree from any mediocre university. Its just a title and the science itself is trivial or non-consequential.
Id like to be proven wrong.
Yes, but isn't the point that science and religion are both in the explanation business? Religious explanations are often fixed and doctrinaire. Those of science are ususally evidence based and may change as knowledge increases.
No, religion as an explanation system comes out of the need for a simple comforting answer, comfort comes first. In science, there could be a level of comfort in trying to find answers, but scientists actively scale off comfort as it is the foundation of scientific biases.
The early humans didn't stare up at the sun forming a God out of it because they first wanted to find an answer to why that thing was up there being hot. They formed a story around it out of the need to comfort their experience of reality with having a new authority over them when their actual authorities (parents, mentors, and tribe leaders) died or weren't in charge anymore. The explanation side of it is a later product within religion by scholars who were drilled into a specific religion but wanted to find out more about actual reality. All of these scholars and "wise men" were the first scientists in history, before we had a rigid system that removed biases from studies, philosophy, and experiments.
The argument, however, is that religion is emergent out of the need for this authority, ritual, and comfort. That this is the psychological need that gets overlooked when pitching science against religion. To pitch science against religion, you must already accept religion as having equal merits in explaining the world and universe, therefore, such an argument already comes from within the fantasy of religion, not looking at the function of science of religion psychologically.
Well, you'll need to start by demonstrating evidence of your claim first.
Not sure how you would do this - you'd probaly need to provide a list of all the most significant scientists (that won't be controversial at all!) then you'd need to demonstrate who was a theist and what kind and who was an atheist.
Not something I imagine you can do. But who cares? As I already said above -
Quoting Tom Storm
Einstein? He's like a Rorschach inkblot on theism. A believer in a Spinoza's God. Famously in his notorious 1954 letter Einstein wrote:
And
I think it's clear that Einstein preferred science to religion.
He was actually agnostic but anyway.
I think we see this differently. Explanations are explanations. Besides religious explanations do not always provide comfort. They often provide fear and trembling and terrifying obligations. The point for me is that both world views attempt to make sense of the world - explanations. How they go about it is of course quite different but that has no impact on the fact they are both trying to explain reality.
As it happens, I have known a number of former evangelicals who have deconverted and most of them have stated that science has made the world a whole lot less scary on account of the supernatural not being the explanation of why we are here.
The proof of god is one of the biggest philosophical questions there is. Science cant find such proof yet, nor can it actually find proof to various other hypotheticals such as the graviton or dark matter.
Yet, though no proof is yet to be found on the two things science has not adopted an atheist stance to the existence of the graviton or dark matter.
Now there lies the real stupidity on part of the lay scientist and atheist.
So whilst theyre happy to dismiss God for lack of proof theyre yet to dismiss the graviton, the messiah to their gravity for lack of proof.
Hypocritical, blind and stupid.
We get it you're an angry theist. So?
Yup Im angry at stupidity an all its forms and guises, problem ?
Just that you're like the mirror image of the angry atheist, making the same sorts of claims about stupidity.
Yes Im not angry at faith or lack of it. Im angry at stupidity because it leads to ignorance and ignorance leads to evil.
The stupidity of religious people and atheists? Or are only atheists stupid?
Both I dont care what you believe or not believe in, just stupidity.
Well, many atheists don't conclude there is no god. I don't. I simply say I am not convinced. I think we've had this discussion.
I've also noticed that many theists are against religion and favour science, so the debate is a lot more nuanced than some people think.
No I dont usually let stupidity slide for the reason that stupidity in action has real world consequences if its not confronted.
But its the combination of stupidity with arrogance that creates problems because the actions of the stupid person are not seen as stupid at the time, but its the persistence of it and not learning from the mistake. You really cant change stupid nor can you lead a horse to water and make it drink.
So what do you do?
@Tom Storm
About stupidity? I think stupidity is an unwinnable war.
No, I beat stupid people all the time, especially at logic and chess. Although a drunk guy beat me once, perhaps I underestimated him when he says hed been drinking for 7 hours straight.
Theres all kinds of stupid of course but the advantage of the smart person is they can adapt whereas the stupid not so much.
In any case for me the Christian faith has taught me a few things such as humility, the theist who dont practice them aint a real Christian. It also teaches charity yet I find Christians who are the opposite.
In essence it teaches against vanity and we need this in the age of idols and social media more than ever.
Sure humility and compassion and kindness are secular too but sometimes I just feel like whacking the kardashians with my king Jamess over the head repeatedly till they start being a bit kinder or just stop saying stupid shit, and if I fail removing their stupidity at least Ive removed their dense makeup.
Please note Im not a woman beater, though Im sure the bible says to keep women in check somewhere :rofl:
Have you ever wondered why people enjoy horror movies? Comfort does not function with just being in a pink cloud happy place. Comfort through the invented authority that people get through religion is about getting guidance in thought and experience, emotional guidance requires emotional balance to be able to guide through the emotional range humans have. People don't seek comfort by being put in a room filled with soft pillows, they seek comfort by not being alone in experience. Especially having a mentor in such a place. When the mentors are gone, we invent them. The invisible friend, the actual friend who seems much more emotionally stable, the husband or wife, the authority leader who seems to know more, or... the higher power to surrender to because then, everything will be fine. All of them, guide the emotional journey of a person, even if it's a fantasy in their head. Religion is a form of storytelling in which the fictional characters become real in the minds of the believers. All in service of that comfort.
The key thing here is that I'm not saying anything negative about this comfort, I'm saying it is crucial, maybe even essential to our very existence. But instead of forming a society around a more rational approach to this need for comfort and authority, people confuse themselves into looking at religion as something other than what it is, giving it merits it does not or should not have.
Quoting Tom Storm
The key difference is the approach and end goal. Science does it out of curiosity and the end goal is knowledge, understanding, and the will to create out of all the entropy.
Religion does it out of comfort with the end goal of proving that these comforting ideas are real or else render this comfort false. The driving goal for religious people to explain reality to be in line with their religion is to confirm, not to explain. This confirmation is driven by the fear of losing the comfort of the idea they invented as the foundation for existence. And through generations, it is hard to rid yourself of a comforting fantasy that has for hundreds of years been said to be true. Looking at history, the ones who proposed models of reality that went against the church or common ideas about existence were fearless in front of the safety of that comfort. For them, they upheld truth higher than comfort and through that, they were able to understand the difference between confirmation bias and truth/facts. As society matured and understood more and more it started to form rules surrounding all of this and then science as we know it today was formed, but this dislocation of the human bias only happened recently through historical perspectives.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, that is true. Maybe because in scientific answers, the confirmation becomes actual truth (when proved). When something is explained it is no longer scary. However, it doesn't change the fact that horrors exist for real. The horrors of people doing others harm, the horrors of a faulty mind, the horrors of nature, the horrors of spacetime breaking down, horrors of alien life. There are a number of things that are still scary about reality without there ever being anything supernatural. They've just experienced that they don't need a supernatural layer of horror on top of all that.
However, as I've been saying, they still exist under the psychological need for comfort and authority over them, as all people do. The psychological relationship between the experience in religion and the experience of parents/mentors when growing up is missed whenever there are discussions about religion and science.
What I'm trying to point out is that we frequently equalize between science and religion all the time in discussions, when they aren't really the same thing. Just because both share some similarities in searching for answers, the surrounding factors, psychology, and so on, differ so much between them that we give the wrong framework around what religion is. It is also in evangelists' best interest to frame religion on equal grounds to science. But to talk honestly about these two, we need to study the fundamentals of psychology driving why people conduct science and why they live by religious belief.
Sounds like winning is important to you. I'm too stupid to understand chess or logic. A woman tried to teach me chess, but I found it insufferably boring as I do all games.
I've been an atheist since I was young. I have a number of theist friends, but some dislike religion as much or more than I. What I have learned about belief is that there is no such thing as a Christian or a Hindu as such. Believers tend to embody a version of a faith they think is correct. It is often at odds with other believer's versions of the same faith. And all of them believe they have the correct interpretation. Lots of dogma and certainty going in this space and yet no way to demonstrate which version is correct.
How would you would describe your variety of Christianity? Why does it matter to you?
Id describe myself as a Quaker, so no middle men like preachers, priests or any clergy apart from the odd ceremonial occasion such as a wedding or a funeral.
So handpicked values, and I only pick the best
That's what they all say.
Sure if you disagree agree against the precepts of humility, compassion, kindness and the discouragement of vanity and revenge. If your values as an atheist are superior to these then by all means keep them to yourself.
[quote= 1 Corinthians 13]
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
[/quote]
Religion is based on superstitious faith but science also has faith that these questions will be eventually answered without a major shift in its current paradigms.
Certainly!
My point was more that people are turning science into something else - something that resembles a new kind of religion.
And that kind of ties into my next point:
Quoting Christoffer
I don't think science discerns facts. I think it creates predictive models.
The idea that science produces Truth with a capital 'T' is what risks science being turned from a useful tool into a religion or ideology.
In comparison to religion, it does, even if the inner workings of science essentially never claim to end in "truth". It becomes a semantics problem in the argument if we break down these words. By "truth" I mean some essential principles of comparison, like: Religion says the sun is the sun god but science have shown, through evidence that it is a magnetically bound gravity well of high energy matter forming other matter through fusion producing enough heat to warm us. We can science the sun further and find more complex quantum mechanical properties or even turn what we know on its head with new discoveries, but it is certainly more true than the religious claim. The same goes for pretty much everything that has been validated by science, especially things that became a foundation for some technology since that technology wouldn't work if our models weren't true in relation to the reality we create this technology within. Creating that technology requires certain truths to be valid and it's not really predictive anymore, but confirmed.
I don't see why such a comparison would be relevant to the nature of science.
Quoting Christoffer
I think it simply requires the models to be accurate enough. That standard is usually set by some arbitrary measure like whether it provides adequate accuracy for practical application.
In the context of this discussion pitting the search for answers to reality through either religion or science. Within that context, religion is inferior and also does not have the same foundation for why.
Quoting Tzeentch
Sure, the goal is still to reach as close to the truth as humanly (with our machines and tech) possible. Religion doesn't do that, it settles on what confirms the pre-decided and invented truth. If religious attempts to answer questions of reality actually tried to be accurate, it would collapse any confirmation and implode the belief that was supposed to be confirmed. This is why I position that religion doesn't really have much to do with science, only that there's an illusion of similarity through religion trying to answer scientific questions. But all of it boils down to seeking comfort through illusion, to comfort existence by confirming things without having to be thorough and accurate.
When people realize the psychological purpose of religion, it's much more clear that we need a rational replacement for the rituals and way of thinking that exist in religion, without slapping on illusions and fantasies. The psychological purpose of religion is important for our wellbeing and existence, the religion itself is not.
That science cannot answer those questions does not mean it gives validation to religion, it only concludes that all answers aren't answered yet. Throughout the history of science (modern non-biased science), we have been constantly answering "unanswerable questions" and religion has always moved the goalposts for "what science cannot answer". That doesn't mean that scientists have "faith" the unanswered questions will be answered, they don't care about faith in that way, they search for knowledge out of curiosity.
These attempts to create similarities between science and religion just seem like ways to try to place religion on equal terms or drag science down to some imaginary level, but it's not correct. Science and religion have two different functions and religion is not to answer questions, but to comfort existence. If people want a life without fantasy and superstition, they still need to find rituals, traditions, and awe that don't require religion. You can check my longer initial post in this thread for that.
As for answering the evolutionary purpose of consciousness, it has logic in how evolution and natural selection work. Human consciousness could simply have been the initial evolutionary trait of being unpredictable in both survival and hunting. With our other mental qualities being emergent side effects of this primary function. To say that there are no answers is to disregard the things we actually know, have researched, and tested.
I also think that many confuse scientists saying "we don't know" with "we don't know anything". It's a core tenet of science to not conclude anything as any truth-axiom. But something that has been tested and confirmed to an accuracy ratio of 1 000 000 to 1 is still considered "we don't know" by scientists, even if it's so confirmed that we utilize it for making technology that actually works based on such a finding. General relativity is still within "we don't know", but it is still confirmed and used in technologies like GPS. So, much of our cognition, much of our brain, and how we function is already very confirmed and used in medical science and practices, but a lot we still don't know. That doesn't mean scientists say "we don't know anything" or "we are wrong" or "religion is right".
Im curious about your reasoning that humanity wouldnt be better off without religion. Can you explain why?
Quoting Tom Storm
Scientific belief succumbs to the structure of the proposition.It asks only whether something is or is not the case, true or false. In doing so, it presupposes the sense of the case it is adjudicating. But more fundamental than asking if something is the case or not , is asking what is at stake and at issue. By asking this , we put into question and decenter the very sense of the case. And in fact , every time we examine the truth of a statement , we are in some measure at the same time decentering the basis around which belief revolves.
Joseph Rouse writes:
You can't kill a religion. As beliefs are not killable. They resurface from natural thought, exploration and desire for fundamental answers.
If everyone was a scientist, some of them would move away from science in a quest for an alternative. If everyone was religious, many of them would move away towards something alternative (science). Neither subjective nor objective views of reality can ever be fully eliminated (killed).
They're mutually neccesary.
"There are those" seems to be covertly pointing at yours truly. Likewise, the poster-who-shall-not-be-named falsely accuses Gnomon of substituting New Ageism for Scientism. But he's dead wrong, and so are you, if you interpret a> my defense of metaphysical Philosophy*1, as a rejection of physical Science, and b> my references to Holism as a sign of New Age beliefs. Holism*2 is actually a modern scientific concept that was adopted by New Agers, and by Quantum Physics pioneers.
In some circles --- believers in the inerrancy of Empirical Science --- Gnomon has gained a rep for Science -bashing. They equate my criticism of their alt-religion belief system as directed toward the insitiution of Science itself. That's like a Catholic, who interprets any Protestant pope-criticism as God-bashing. The problem is not with the scientific evidences, but with mis-placed faith in the ancient philosophy of Materialism*3.
For the record, Gnomon is not bashing Empirical Science in this thread. And is not advocating for replacing one fundamentalism with another. That is the exact opposite of my intention. Instead, I was accusing Scientism of claiming to have a source of authoritative Truth in "settled science"*3.
*1. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html
*2. Quantum Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts. The existence of such global properties incompatible with all local properties constitutes what I call "mereological holism"--the distinctive holism of Quantum Theory.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438
*3. Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/
FWIW, 's "distinction" mis-interpreted the intent of my assertion. I actually agree with his appraisal of Scientism*4. But the "source" I was referring to is an official biblical compendium of "settled science". One poster in particular has made repeated references to "settled science" as-if it was a real thing*5.
*4. [i]For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority [settled science] on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. Gnomon
"I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism."[/i] ___Tom Storm
*5. "I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction." Tom Storm
Yes. I only use the derogatory term "scientism" in order to make that same distinction. Science is supposed to be a Fact system, not a Faith system. Science is always tentative, and seldom settled. Hence not an authoritative Bible for Materialists to thump.
The OP seems to be asking if Secular Science has the "right stuff" to replace religion*6. Then noted that due to the "-ism" (belief system) in the name, Scientism might be construed as a religious belief system*7. But he clarified that Science (without the -ism) does not have the metaphysical (values ; ethics) credentials to qualify as a religion. He seemed to be defending non-ism- Science from being confused with Scientism as a pseudo-religious belief system. I do think the belief system of Scientism is a corruption of the original ideals of Empirical Science --- to let the "book" of Nature be the final authority.
I agreed with Tim's distinction. Then I made a few remarks about Final Authority in religion, which Scientism claims to have in "Settled Science". I noted that neither Scientism nor non-ism-Science has the kind of biblical or papal authority characteristic of Christianity. That was intended to be a positive aspect of Empirical Science, avoiding inclinations to fundamentalist Faith. But some, such as Tom apparently construed that assertion as denigration of Empirical Science. Hence, we got off on a side-track, that some interpreted as Empirical Science bashing.
*6. [i]"It seems that science is in need of religions values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.
Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on sciences trajectory."[/i] ___
Note -- Would empirical Science be able to objectify morality, as in Utilitarianism?
*7. Scientism :
"there is a good argument to be made that scientism isn't science, and that science doesn't deal with key aspects religion does, e.g. ontology". ___
Of course you can, simply eliminate every trace of it, and that would include its adherents. Not that that would be easy, especially if it were a popular religion. As Janus pointed out though, you'd essentially be replacing one ideology for another, which is beside the point.
By claiming that a religion is fundamental, natural, and discoverable with exploration, you're basically saying that it's true or that you're a believer.
Quoting Benj96
You seem to be saying that religion and science merely fulfill a desire for an alternative view of the world. I think there's more to it than that.
This seems naive. Firstly, it goes to my point that most, if not all theists, would class themsleves as the good guys - with a series of similar motherhood statements you've provided - compassion, humility etc. I heard a similar list recently from a Muslim taxi driver.
As I said, believers of any stripe ususally think they have the right interpretation, not realising the bedrock of subjectivity that underpins their faith.
Secondly, atheism is the answer to a single question - whether you are convinced a god exists. Atheism isn't a system. There are atheists who are libertarians or Marxists, some even believe in reincarnation and astrology. What you may be thinking of, perhaps, is secular humanism which also includes the sorts of homilies you have described above.
The point with morality is not what people say they value and do, it is what they actually value and do.
Theres nothing naive about those values, calling them naive with expanding on why strikes me as unjustifed judgment. As such its just an opinion, and Im happy to have a difference of opinion with you, but how could you advocate vanity or revenge when they are negative attributes or actions ? Can you offer an explanation?
Humility enables us avoid the trap of arrogance at the same time allowing us to take instruction and advice. I accept most of those Christian values that I mentioned as theyre good for my soul.
Take the opposite of say humility which is hubris, and the the opposite of compassion is apathy.
On what grounds do you disagree with these moral teachings irrespective of a creator God?
@Wayfarer do you think Im making sense in the above things regardless of god, certain values are non-negotiable?
The enforcement of sound judgment comes from experience which is first hand account of morality, and education as prescriptive and second hand.
Though one of the 10 commandments says Thou Shalt not Steal, but you do steal. Its only when youre stolen from that you understand morality first hand otherwise the precepts of such morality are only prescriptive and serve as a warning against doing so.
But religions can and have died, the religions of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc., etc.
I didn't say the values were naïve, I said they are motherhood statements that almost all believers, no matter how intolerant and dreadful, profess to share.
It seems naïve to assume that you putting them here in any way clarifies things since these values are interpreted differently by all and sundry.
Quoting invicta
I'm not talking about morality - that's a separate matter. I'm talking about the difference between what people say and how they are.
Perhaps this example will assist. Some years back I spent time with some South Africans who were supporters of apartheid. Turns out they were also devout Christians. Over the course of a meal it was clear they professed compassion, forgiveness, humility, tolerance and love yet simultaneously they denigrated black people and spoke of their contempt for homosexuals and women who are not homemakers. They supported capital punishment for dug users and revered 'white blood'. Their faith and the Bible 'told' them these where core moral values from God. Needless to say we can easily find Christians who are in opposition to these positions.
Indeed.
Nowhere have I accused you of new ageism, nor of "science bashing"
The most I have "accused" (your word) you of is not being able to either follow or present a clear argument.
Despite the faux footnotes.
Speaking of "faux footnotes", can you "present a clear argument" to show why any of my footnotes is "faux". That would be instructive, and help me to communicate in your language. :smile:
No.
OK. I was just trying to be accommodating to your & my limitations.
Perhaps my complex arguments have too many elements for your open/shut bear-trap mind*1. "Hard" problems are indeed difficult to follow, with all the twist & turns, and varying perspectives. Perhaps an "argument map" would help*2. But I'll save that for someone who is really interested in the OP question. :smile:
*1. Compared to my more excursive mind.
*2. Argument Map :
A complex argument is a set of arguments with either overlapping premises or conclusions (or both). Complex arguments are very common because many issues and debates are complicated and involve extended reasoning. To understand complex arguments, we need to analyze the logical structure of the reasoning involved.
https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php
As long as the need for religion is felt, humanity will not be better off without it. I doubt that need is going to disappear.
I think you are, but it's an unwinnable argument, as there will always be counter-examples, such as those @Tom Storm has given.
When I studied Comparative Religion, the very first class was devoted to defining religion. Convinced this would be a simple task, we all sat around in small groups and canvassed ideas and came up with a list of what we thought would amount to a definition. To our surprise, the lecturer was able to demonstrate that every definition was incomplete or inaccurate. We couldn't, in the end, come up with a definition.
I was (and am) a theosophical type (small t), who believes that the different wisdom traditions portray profound truths, but they are very hard to grasp. They can't be explained in direct terms - that is why so much of their lore is couched in terms of myth, metaphor, and allegory. Ultimately they all demand that you become a different kind of being. Herewith a quote from a Catholic philosopher (I will add, I'm not Catholic)
You could find exact parallels to that text in Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and Buddhist sources, were you to look. But it's not the property of any of them, in that it's not confined or limited to them. Let the world get rid of all of them - the requirement would remain.
No loss then. :up:
Thats like saying that if the need for a drug is felt humanity will not be better off without it. If the drug was never know it would not be missed.
If you mean something else I think you may need to elaborate on the nature of the need that you mention, and why only a religion can fulfill it.
I think the drug analogy is weak. Religion is not an addiction, but a way of life, the need for religion is not like the need for a drug, and a religious life is not intrinsically unhealthy or inherently unhappier than a secular life; in fact, some studies have shown the opposite. Some people are simply attracted to that way of life, and others not. And the numbers of those who are is significant, so it's not a peripheral social phenomenon. Religion is also socially engaging, not isolating like the use of hard drugs of addiction.
I used drug as an analogy but it could have been anything. If weve never known something then we cant miss it.
The point being that religion is not the only way to fulfill human needs of any kind. We seem to agree about that.
Indeed. Karen Armstrong has written compellingly about this. Religion is one of those things that we struggle to define, but we know it when we see it. Like anything human, it may be awful and great. For years I felt slightly ashamed for my bias against religion until I met a couple of Catholic priests, one of them is now friend. He used to say - 'Religion is all too frequently deficient - people use relgion as a place to hide.'
Most of my criticism of religion I found in Krishnamurti, Fr Richard Rohr and Bishop Shelby Spong - all robust critics of the more popular expressions of faith. I think it was Christian thinker David Bentley Hart who said that Evangelicalism is not really Christianity, it is type of capitalist cult.
I don't think there is a 'spiritual' or theistic urge specifically which people share that explains the persistence of religions, I think it's just the urge to have metanarratives which are transcendence as foundational story. Which is why in some moods I would put Communism and Scientism down as expressions of religion. I don't think they are sublimated or distorted transcendence; they are the real deal, the 'urge' incarnate.
But yes even as a Christian Im not dogmatic. But there is a sense of zeal when it comes to knocking down someones beliefs. Its called intolerance.
In this sense prosecuting someone for their beliefs highlights immaturity.
By all means question or be sceptical of idea such as god, but to knock it down altogether is to remain ever in infancy.
Hmm, look above I also wrote this:
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting invicta
I have no special fondness for atheists. Especially those who are libertarians or scientistic thinkers. Or worse, occultists...
But when I look at what is happening in America with Trump and evangelical white nationalists, and in India with Modi and Hindu nationalists and Saudi Arabia with Wahhabi nationalists and Myanmar and its extreme Buddhist nationalists and... etc, etc. This is no small thing. And sure, the religion of Communism as instantiated in China sucks too. You're right, I'm intolerant about these things.
And sects of major religions either die or radically transform. The Vatican of 2023 is not the Vatican of 1123; the faith has undergone a dramatic transformation.
Likewise, the Gnostic sects died out in late antiquity, although some of their ideas were reborn with the Cathars/Albagensians.
I think this is generally taken as evidence against the veracity of religious or spiritual systems.
However, I've found it interesting that some religious thinkers see this as a necessary process. I've seen this view more often in the Christian tradition, but I assume it applies elsewhere. The idea is that God reveals God's plan for humanity through history, in stages of progression, hence the Bible being over 50% histories.
The Bible starts with God having a 1 on 1, personal, handholding, relationship with Abraham and the other Patriarchs. This relationship only required faith, like a toddler who must learn to do what their parents says, but who also willfully misinterprets commands and ends up being corrected.
With Moses the relationship moves to a cultural group and the members are now expected to follow arbitrary rules. Christianity then represents a move to following the more nuanced, flexible reason behind the rules. A lot of Jesus' discussion of the law focuses on following the spirit of the law, love for God and others, over the letter of the law.
The idea is that this progression continues today. Societies weren't ready for modern governance in antiquity. Before you get to socialism, the social question, you first need to progress to constitutional rule of law and the end of noble status, the political question.
So the faith will change over time, growing towards an ultimate realization. This change will sometimes be painful; as Saint Paul says in Romans 8, the world is in labor pains as it gives birth to the future world where freedom is achieved.
Just an aside, because I've always found both religious and non-religious theories of progress interesting. It is relevant though in that science itself also believes in progress. Even people who assiduously deny the concept of historical progress often allow that science is a human institutions in which theories progressively get better at representing the world over time.
Indeed, I think this belief in progress is necessary for science. If we don't think our theories today are necessarily any better than the theories of 1900, then we can't trust any text books and learn about a wide number of fields. All our efforts will have to be focused on deciding if the text book of 2023 is actually better than the one of 1883 if we have no reason to assume science "progresses."
You need to explain why religion is needed to believe in something transcendent.
Ah yes but I said you can't kill "religion". As a general concept or category. Sure religions die. But new ones are invariably born.
The simple matter is that religion offers other interpretations to science. And so acts as a healthy stand in for contrast, variety etc. And deals in part with fields not within the scope of science, at least not currently.
Many religions like taoism, buddhism etc actually have quite consistently relevant and useful concepts for philosophy, life ethos, outlook on death etc. Science doesn't deal with such things in quite the same way.
Because transcendence is about traversing boundaries. Unifying. Taking the separate and combining them. Science and religions are typically apart, segregated and often directly in opposition to one another.
Science alone cannot transcendent spirituality. Spirituality alone cannot transcendent science.
But perhaps there is a fusion available/possible that doesn't erode the unique advantages and disadvantages of both tools as approaches to understanding reality and the human condition.
In Architecture school, I was once assigned the task of inventing a new religion, then designing a church or temple for its peculiar worship needs. Since I had been recently reading about Theosophy, instead of mars-worship, or buglike-alien-worship, or chocolate-chip-cookie worship, I chose the actual doctrines & practices of Theosophy (god wisdom) as the functional requirements for my building. It was so foreign to my upbringing that it seemed pure fantasy. FWIW, I was not then, nor am I now, a believer or practitioner of mystical Theosophy. "Not that there is anything wrong with that" :smile:
Theosophy : [i]teaching about God and the world based on mystical insight.
any of a number of philosophies maintaining that a knowledge of God may be achieved through spiritual ecstasy, direct intuition, or special individual relations, especially the movement founded in 1875 as the Theosophical Society by Helena Blavatsky and Henry Steel Olcott (18321907).
Theosophy is a term used in general to designate the knowledge of God supposed to be obtained by the direct intuition of the Divine essence. In method it differs from theology, which is the knowledge of God obtained by revelation, and from philosophy, which is the knowledge of Divine things acquire by human reasoning. . . . India is the home of all theosophic speculation.[/i]
Note --- Theosophy seems to be a sort of American amalgamation of Hinduism. So it may be a local source of much of what we now call New Age religion/philosophy
PS__The OP seems to be wondering if stark objective Science and warm & fuzzy subjective Mysticism could mate (cross-species) to produce something resembling a traditional fat furry Religion with abstract rational skeleton.
To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton: Of course, not all believers are stupid but almost all the stupid people I've ever met are believers.
Quoting Banno
:up:
The belief in something transcendent is the essence of religion as I would define it. (Note, I draw a distinction between thinking the transcendental and believing in some form of transcendence). Religious thinking is always hierarchical thinking.
Huston Smith's depiction of the Great Chain of Being
I say that religion consists in believing in some kind of transcendent reality, because I can't see how a religion could exist which accepted only the empirical. Accepting only the empirical could perhaps be thought of as ideology, but not religion, insofar as religion always seems to incorporate a hierarchy of authority and a soteriology of some kind.
Just to complicate matters further, this reminds me of Deleuze, too, with his idea of a plane of immanence; he styled himself as a transcendental empiricist, and was a great admirer of Spinoza, referring to the latter as "the prince of philosophers". Spinoza notably rejected the idea of a transcendent deity, and Deleuze followed Duns Scotus (as did Heidegger) who argued against Aquinas in declaring the univocity of being, and thus rejecting the idea of a heirarchy of being and the ideas of "ontotheology" (Heidegger's term) and transcendence.
Auguste Comte, founder of sociology and inventor of 'positivism', also tried to found a replacement for religion. Comte's religion, which he called the "Religion of Humanity" or the "Religion of Man," was intended to provide a moral framework for a scientific society. It was based on the idea that human beings could achieve happiness and fulfillment by working for the betterment of humanity as a whole, rather than pursuing individual goals or selfish desires. Comte believed that this new religion should be centered around a "cult of humanity," in which the great thinkers, scientists, and social reformers of history would be venerated as saints. He proposed a system of rituals and ceremonies to celebrate the achievements of humanity, including a "Festival of Humanity" to be held on August 20th of each year. It never really took off, although there is still a 'Church of Positivism' in Brazil.
Or is the 'parasite' the human urge to make and hold foundational metanarratives, from religion to aesthetics, literature to science - which is where I tend to go with this. There's safety and predictability in putative certainty.
Obviously, people can believe in something transcendent without belonging to a religion, without knowing anything about any religion. I suppose you would call that a personal religion?
Which indicates that its essence is about order and control.
Yeah Richard Dawkins would say that. Although he would make an exception for evolutionary biology of course.
I wonder too what counts as transcendence? Is intelligibility itself transcendent? Are the logical axioms? Maths? Morality? Do we go by Kant, Aristotle or Wittgenstein on this one?
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, no - you may have misunderstood me. Dawkins believes staunchly in science and progress - surely cases of metanarratives in action?
Yes. And science in general. And aesthetics - he is big on Bach. And the notion of truth. The intelligibility of a natural world. He is riddled with old school metanarrative thinking.
I would not say that the essence of religion is about establishing order and control, although of course religion has been used politically to try to maintain order and control. For example, the teachings of the Gospels were distorted by the Church in order to hold onto and extend its powers.
As I see it, the hierarchical nature of religion is more to do with the idea of powers and intelligences higher than the earthly. So, yes, there can be personal religion. where the faithful seek for higher wisdom through discipline and meditation or prayer, or other practices without attaching themselves to any particular organized religion.
I'd say intelligibility, logic and maths and morality are, if not empirical, then transcendental, not transcendent unless you impute a higher realm where they find their genesis.
One point that is at the back of my mind is the exclusive emphasis on 'belief' in respect of religion. It can be contrasted with the attitude associated with Hindu and Buddhist culture which place more emphasis on the attaining of insight, that being the ostensible aim of meditative practices. But if you go into it, you discover it's really a very difficult path to actually follow. Not that people can't follow it, but there's a lot of room for error and endless scope for self-delusion (traditionally this is why a spiritual master is required, although that requirement is another fertile ground for charlatans and scams)
The founding teacher of Pure Land Buddhism, Shinran, said that the path of meditation and insight was 'the path of sages' - which is, of course, intrinsic to Buddhism, as Buddha and the patriarchs of Buddhism are regarded as sages. But at the same time, Shinran said that very few could actualise that path of insight in reality as it requires exceptional dedication and skill. (You'd never pick that up reading Alan Watts.) The rest of us - 'bombu', in their terms, meaning 'foolish ordinary people' - have to rely wholly and solely on the salvific power of faith in Amida Buddha (one of the legendary Buddhas) who made a vow to bring all beings to Nirv??a (it is a school of Mah?y?na Buddhism). Pure Land is, for this reason, often compared with Christianity, which is superficially true although it's vastly different in terms of actual doctrine, which is Buddhist through and through.
There's another level of similarity, though, between the two traditions, which is that the philosophical schools that early Christianity absorbed, such as neoplatonism, and also some of the gnostic sects adjacent to Christianity, likewise taught austere philosophical and contemplative practices with a view to acheiving divine union. In this they were similar to the Buddhist and Hindu schools, as they were all 'axial age' religions (per Karl Jaspers). But the success of Christianity was in rejecting such 'elitism' and its onerous disciplines by offering salvation to all (although on condition of faith in the Doctrine). For this reason, and since the ascendancy of Luther in particular, with his emphasis on salvation by faith alone and sola scriptura, there's almost a complete disconnect between the sapiential or (broadly speaking) gnostic dimension of Christian and Greek philosophy, and how religion is nowadays conceived, as 'belief without evidence'.
The point being, the realisation of higher planes of being, which permeates all of those forms of culture, is 'evidential', in the sense that for those who practice within those cultures, there is said to be the attainment of insight (jñ?na or gnosis). Whereas in our technocratic age (and here on this forum) all of that is stereotyped under the umbrella of mere belief. (See Karen Armstrong Metaphysical Mistake)
Quoting Tom Storm
The doctrine of forms, modified by Aristotle, became absorbed into theology through Pseudo-Dionysius, Eriugena, Thomas Aquinas and scholastic philosophy, before being generally rejected since the Enlightenment (although neo-thomism and Aristotelianism are making something of a comeback.)
Don't remember now if I have read any of his stuff (apart from the odd essay and paper) but I have seen some interviews.
Quoting Wayfarer
Good point.
Quoting Wayfarer
I am familiar with this and spent some time with Gnositcs.
I've also watched some lectures by John Vervaeke on Neoplatonism and the Western tradition. I have a rudimentary grasp of its centrality.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, I think this is a key insight. I obviously sit on the technocratic end of this, but I am interested in the 'other side' as it were. Although these days I might be less likely to use inflammatory language like 'mere belief' although it might depend upon my mood.
Well, for instance, and to put it as simply as possible, I think that we're like fish in a fishbowl, limited and unable to see reality beyond the fishbowl. I also think (and have experienced to some degree) that we can alter our mental state and perceive... I'll say differently.
Thus I am a religious person? :brow:
Like you I don't think we can see beyond what our experiences allows, and I also acknowledge altered states of consciousness. But I don't believe in a transcendent higher power, and don't see the possibility of ultimate salvation, although I do see the possibility of liberation from attachment to dualistic thinking. Am I a religious person? I don't think of myself as such, because I don't think any of this is ordained by a higher transcendent power, rather it's just in the nature of the human condition. Some even question whether Daoism or Buddhism qualify as religions.
Many dont realize the nature of religion.
Dharma and religion have overlaps but theyre not exactly the same.
If removing any supernatural and spiritual elements then they are closer to what I described about the essential need for rituals, traditions, and awe in a non-religious way of life. How the importance of traditions and rituals exist in the psychology of humans and that trying to rid yourself of every such form has a tremendous negative impact on our well-being.
I am as much of an atheist as they come. I think religion is pure delusion and fantasy. But I also think the pendulum from religion to atheism has been swung too heavily and with such power that we've lost some essential aspects of human psychology in relation to religious practice.
I think that one part of avoiding Nietzsche's nihilistic hell is to find a way to have rituals and traditions in a non-religious world. Like the tradition of Midsommar in Sweden, having no real religious ties anymore, and is more of a social tradition. Likewise Thanksgiving not needing any religious ties, but functions as a social tradition. And how basic meditation has been shown to clinically lower stress levels.
Many religions feature practices that on the surface are just praying and worship, but underneath it all have psychological impacts on our well-being. And there's too little study on the actual practices and how they could be utilized for better health and well-being, both psychologically and physically.
Especially in a world where there's an overload of information and sensory inputs. People are constantly becoming increasingly overworked and burnt out, and stress levels have increased so much that researchers have found it to damage the brain physically. But we have no strategy for handling it other than disconnecting and losing connection with the rest of society in doing so.
I also think that if society were to adapt into a place with more emphasis on methods of contemplation, meditation, social traditions, and other aspects of religion that don't require religion, we can more easily rid society of the negative religious parts but keep the good practical parts.
Your response - and others have proffered similar ideas to yours - notably the prominent atheists, Sam Harris and Alain de Botton - leads me to some questions:
Do we have evidence that people were less stressed or happier, or more connected to what matters a hundred, two hundred years ago, when religion still had power in the west? I knew three of my grandparents pretty well. They were born in the late 1800s. They did not seem to think so.
Is there any compelling demonstration that people's lives are better with ritual and contemplation? How would we demonstrate this?
Would lives not be generally enhanced if people just slowed down the pace and stopped social media and eating shit? (Such dreams are possibly only a middle class option.) Is it perhaps the case that meditation's benefits are down to the person not being at McDonald's, swiping away on their phone, or similar?
Quoting Christoffer
I'd be interested to learn who is actually experiencing Nietzsche's nihilistic hell. I work in the area of mental ill health and drug and alcohol services and even though I meet a lot of people experiencing suicidal ideation, generally they are not nihilists. Ususally they are people dealing with psychological impact of trauma or a significant situational difficulty.
Nihilism seems moderately rare, although it seems to pop up frequently in overwrought internet conversations. On the whole, connection to people seems a better guarantee of enhanced mental health and happiness from what I've seen. This could be found though sport, a book group, at church or at an atheist symposium.
Compared to many religious practices, it would of course be voluntary. You don't have to, but it's there as part of a culture that balances against the current Western culture that is slowly killing us with stress.
And you're already somewhat part of this, wherever you live I'd guess there are traditions that happen that aren't linked to religion, but function as celebrations of some sort, a social event. People opt out of those all the time and compared to religion, no one is really judgemental of those people.
Quoting Tom Storm
No, we weren't happier before, but we have another type of stress today. And we have a society that has removed many of the dangers of living that existed back then. This has led to another type of stress. The modern world does not distinguish stress that can be correlated to a certain danger, like the need for food or shelter/home. Today, stress is vague, exists all the time, and never rests. This is because of things like social media, smartphones, internet in general, and a change to what "work" means in people's lives. The constant connection, availability, the constant work creates a system where we never really rest, think and contemplate. People even make it a business with self-help books and other bullshit that stress out people more because they need to "book rest" into their calender.
What I'm talking about is a society where we structure these things into everyday life. A culture that incorporates rest, meditation, and contemplation as part of everyday practices. Creating rituals that can be followed without having the burden of spirituality and religion attached to it.
Quoting Tom Storm
There's been many studies on the positive effects of meditation and boredom (specifically contemplative). Studies conducted used one group living with these day-to-day practices and the control group without. Sleep became better, mental stability and health improved, and stress levels lowered.
Quoting Tom Storm
Of course, but isn't it better to find a balance between technology and life rather than trying to say "stop it". Why not have practices normalized like brushing our teeth for our dental health? Instead of forcing people to abandon something, we can add practices that mitigate the negatives. When people feel the health benefits, they will do it just as they do exercise. It's just that mental health and stress issues haven't been worked into the culture as much as how we, for example, exercise more as a way of life nowadays than before.
Quoting Tom Storm
We all are to one degree or not. The materialistic consumer neoliberalist hell that we have is a result of this nihilism. People live in it more or less. Gods are replaced by corporations and things, we look up to authorities that provide us with tech and stuff. Church is a stuffed mall. We're already in it and it has even become a Baudrillardian hell in which we are blind to what is real and what is a constructed simulacra of life. This happens when people never stop and contemplate anything.
They are swooped away by a tide of commercialism, brainwashed by commercials forming the ideal lifestyle that they can never reach. Life is not real anymore, it is a never-ending journey to reach the lifestyle that commercials show. The American dream has been replaced by a fictional pseudo-heaven shown in commercials for products. The coastline drive in the luxury car, the influencer billionaire life having a mega party, the morning brew on the porch of a house no one can afford. And the more people live in these dreams, the less they realize they are losing their lives in a stressful fight to reach these heavens.
Quoting Tom Storm
Hence why I suggest society focus more on non-religious social traditions. Let's have more things that bring people together physically around things that people love, good food, contemplative discussions (note debates), experiences, games parties, live events etc.
While rituals are things done as an individual, social traditions act as collective acts. Both with the intent of focusing life towards something other than nihilism and the Baudriallardian desert of the real.
Some seem to think that the development of the state, capitalism, etc., lead to this nihilism. Not the other way around.
I dont think theres any deficiency of non-religious traditions and rituals, btw. Social dance at a neighborhood nightclub, with a group of people dancing to the same beat in coordinated patterns, can be as zen as sitting still with a group at a temple. Its all there, were saturated in meaning, purpose, community anything a church could offer. To think that we need to be spoon fed like children is ridiculous, and actually impairs growth by design, because religion is designed to make followers dependent.
I think that you must first abandon a power structure like the church-state in order to replace it with a capitalist state. We replaced high authority with market authority and individualism in which you are your own god.
I see free market capitalism and our extreme individualism as emergent aspects of leaving a religious church-state system. If you place the individual at the center and remove Gods and pantheons, you are left with a being that self-governs itself as the highest authority, which is what free market capitalism, neoliberalism, and individualism focus on.
Attempts at having other authorities than Gods and priests have been made and it's just created hell on earth in another form. So we have removed actual human authorities and surrendered to a system of capitalism that's so integrated into our lives that it functions more like a Lovecraftian eldritch horror that has absolute authority over us. We are unable to see the beginning and end, unable to know where this being exists. It hides in the stock market, in materialism, in individualistic dreams of more more more.
Maybe it is irrelevant how nihilism, individualistic egoism, and capitalism came to be what it is today, only that when "God died" we were so desperate to get on with this new life of ours that we abandoned aspects that didn't require religion, but were essential to psychological well-being.
Quoting praxis
Absolutely agree, but not all do that on a regular basis. Most lose this part of them when they get older, which means they need something else. And we don't need temples, we don't need archetypes of religion, we need a new framework.
Quoting praxis
I'm absolutely against any kind of spoon-feeding of anything. I'm arguing for just what you talk about. We need more community events, more places for people to meet. We especially need a better rework of our work habits, we need less time working and more time contemplating and meditating, which doesn't mean the same as sitting in front of a sunset getting all spiritual, it means creating a foundation of calm in our daily lives that balance against the hellish nature of neoliberal capitalism that we've been caught in.
What I mean is that society, on a larger scale, may need to advocate for a more healthy balance and a better perspective on materialism than what marketing is feeding to everyone. We're stuck in the desert of the real, believing that everything is fine.
You argue well and write engagingly, but I am unconvinced. No need to take this much further. Thanks for your response.
Quoting Christoffer
I don't entirely disagree, but where I live this fills people's time already. There's a veritable cornucopia of lifestyle shit in the west available to fill people's time - writer's festivals, philosophy groups, food festivals, recreation opportunities, etc. Most of it very middle class and aspirational.
I tend to think this is more apropos -
As true now as it was generations ago. :wink:
Right, and...?
Quoting Wayfarer
:up: I agree.
Quoting Christoffer
I'm not convinced the rituals and traditions can survive without the "supernatural and spiritual elements" that motivated them in the first place and without which they lose their meaning. I personally dislike ritual and tradition, and when attracted to religious ideas it has been to teachings like Daoism and Zen, which are mostly without pomp and ceremony.
That said, celebrations of, for example, the solstices and equinoxes, in the form of festivals with costumery, dance, music and food, is another matter. I live in a small hippie village, and such things are celebrated in entirely new, creative ways. The quality's not always great, but the vitality and enthusiasm is there, and no reliance on long-standing traditions.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't think we need to demonstrate the seemingly obvious point that, for those who desire ritual and contemplation, their lives will be better off if those are a part of their experience than if not.
:chin:
Does this count?
It certainly looks that way. What's your point
That youre very hard to impress when it comes to ceremony, I guess. Its Vatican level or your puny ceremony is meaningless and dont count.
Quoting Tom Storm
If by "nihilism" you mean 'not believing in anything' (i.e. believing all beliefs are false), then I agree with you, Tom. If, however, you mean 'belief in nothing', then I disagree because most people believe place highest value in fictions (e.g. gods, demons, ghosts, souls, miracles, horoscopes, ideology, ideals) either in lieu of or more than they believe place highest value in demonstrable something (e.g. nature, facts, uncertainty, cognitive biases / limits, other people, death, etc).
Yep, this. :up:
The opposite of science is art.
Religion is one form of art.
The science of knowledge vs the art of intuition.
One breaks things down. Reduction. Deduction.
The other puts together. Induction. Often narrative.
Both suffer when they are not skeptical or imaginative.
Then ideas fossilize into institutions, losing the creative spark and curios spirit, becoming daycare institutions for adult children.
I would rather ask, "How do I become a free thinker?".
I think that is the desire behind the question of science ever replacing religion. Giving up a Big Religion is one thing, but then if we turn to Big Science, have we really overcome our tendency to look for a Big Pappa to spoonfeed us the answers we crave?
I suppose it's a process.
A slow painful process of overcoming self doubt and learned helplessness.
I'm not talking about materialism or pseudo-intellectual activities, but a changeover in dedicated time to work versus activities of meaning on a wider scale that does not revolve around the same materialistic capitalism that is already filling people's lives.
Quoting Tom Storm
And this is partly what I'm advocating for as well. It's why I mention mediation as a crucial part of psychological wellbeing. The problem is that these practices are somewhat hijacked in people's minds to be automatically religious or spiritual. What I'm arguing for is to dislocate religion from them and form a new cultural routine with such practices and rituals built into everyday life. It's a fundamental change to how people live. Like brushing your teeth, it is a vital normal part of everyone's daily life.
The answers I get in here when I mention "ritual" just shows how hard it is for people to separate it from religion and spiritualism. "Ritual" does not equal any of that, "ritual" is a repeated act that forms a psychological baseline in which the mind returns to known position. It is probably the reason why nostalgia is so powerful. It is the return to something familiar and important to balance against processing new information.
So in a world with an overload of information, rituals can ground people while meditation can focus thoughts.
Quoting Janus
Yes they can. As I described above here, "rituals" does not equal anything supernatural or spiritual. "Ritual" simply focuses on a repeating practice or act that ground the mind. It can be used as a purely health-based practice for better mental health in its basic function.
And we already have traditions without any religious foundation having any meaning. Thanksgiving has no religious background and even if Midsommar has pagan roots, there's literary no Swede who celebrate Midsommar in any religious manner. These are traditions that have formed a social and collective event in which non-religious rituals ground the collective and individual to a familiar place. There's no dance around a maypole to celebrate any religious or spiritual thing, the dance is just done because it is part of the celebration and it grounds people into a community as well as letting our minds rest towards new information.
Quoting Janus
And this is what I mean, although, in too small communities, such inventions can have a tendency to incorporate newly invented spiritual ideas or become corrupt by a lack of scientific knowledge that is found on larger scale societies.
It's the larger scale of western culture I'm speaking of. A changeover of how western culture is without dismantling its foundation. A balance and synthesis of a more sustainable living (in terms of psychology) with the fast moving progression of western culture.
One breaks things down. Reduction. Deduction. AND puts together (Relativity and quantum mechanics describe almost all known phenomena)
The other puts together often fictitious events (ex., worldwide flood, miracles) to produce a grand narrative (ex. Jesus died for our sins)
Ive attended zen pomp and ceremony, just like in the picture that I posted. Its actually far stricter and elaborate than a typical church service. Your characterization of that tradition is quite wrong. Thats my point.
No it isn't.
I agree that, for example, holy days can become everyday holidays. I was thinking of more elaborately symbolic ceremonies like the Catholic Eucharist becoming meaningless without their symbolic dimension.
Of course, people love festivals, because they love colour, dressing up, dancing and eating and so on. You don't really need any excuse to do those things. Here where I live such activities may be scheduled simply on, for example, the third Sunday of every month.
Quoting Christoffer
What is the problem with "newly invented spiritual ideas" and what has scientific knowledge got to do with celebrating, and how could the latter become corrupt through lack of the former? Your "vision" sounds somewhat like a scientistic prejudice.
As I noted earlier, Auguste Comte, founder of sociology and of the idea of positivism, attempted to create just such a secular church movement, The Church of Man, although it never really took off. IThere's still a Church of Positivism in Brazil, I read. )
Some will say that religion answers only psychological needs, but that itself is reductionist. According to anthropology and comparative religion, religions operate along a number of different lines to provide social cohesion, normative frameworks, and (most of all) a sense of relatedenss to the cosmos, by providing a mythical story which accords a role to human life in the grand scheme of things.
The difficulty with science replacing religion is that it provides no basis for moral judgements, it is a quantitative discipline concerned chiefly with measurement and formulating mathemtically-sound hypotheses. Strictly speaking there is no 'scientific worldview' as such, as science operates on the basis of tentative (i.e. falsifiable) theories which are only ever approximative. It is a method, and maybe an attitude, rather than a definitive statement as to what is real. (Hence the interminable arguments about 'qualia' and whether human beings actually exist.)
[quote=Edward Dougherty;https://strangenotions.com/the-real-war-on-science/]Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The truth (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.
Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.
The demand for quantitative prediction places a burden on the scientist. Mathematical theories must be formulated and be precisely tied to empirical measurements. Of course, it would be much easier to construct rational theories to explain nature without empirical validation or to perform experiments and process data without a rigorous theoretical framework. On their own, either process may be difficult and require substantial ingenuity. The theories can involve deep mathematics, and the data may be obtained by amazing technologies and processed by massive computer algorithms. Both contribute to scientific knowledge, indeed, are necessary for knowledge concerning complex systems such as those encountered in biology. However, each on its own does not constitute a scientific theory. In a famous aphorism, Immanuel Kant stated, Concepts without percepts are blind; percepts without concepts are empty.[/quote]
I concur, and said as much earlier.
The trouble is, while religion pretends to moral authority, it repeatedly fails.
So there can be no argument that we must adhere to religion in order to have a "moral compass" or some such.
I think the best basis for moral values is human harmony and flourishing. Science cannot tell us what to do, per se, but it may help to determine just what does and does not contribute to human flourishing, and it can also help dispel the superstitions which cause so much suffering, such as absurd religious reasons for not providing condoms to impoverished communities, or the genital mutilation of women.
Someone once told me that all generalisations are false, although I took it with a grain of salt.
Making decisions as to what we ought do is not an algorithmic process. But dogma is algorithmic.
Or if you want a more direct argument, the decision to adhere to this or that religion is already a moral decision. And this circularity is vicious, each religion forming it's own bubble of self-justification. Hence they provide no guidance as to which of them to choose.
But, and here we have previously agreed, there is much to be said for Awe. And some small place for ritual in times of pain.
There are all sorts of zen groups, and even some teachers who are less orthodox, such as Brad Warner, though theyre not well respected within the tradition. Indeed, Warner describes himself as an entertainer.
Quoting Janus
Never heard of the tea ceremony or oryoki?
There's a problem with that definition, as no Buddhist would agree that illumination comprises 'knowledge of God', as Buddhism is not theistic. But nevertheless the general idea stands, which is that there is genuine insight into the domain of the first cause, etc. It is hard to obtain, and few obtain it, but real nonetheless. But as our view of all such matters is indeed so thoroughly jaundiced by the very dogma which our particular forms of religious consciousness have foisted on us, then it is impossible to differentiate that genuine type of insight from its ossified dogmatic remnants. But, as the sage Rumi said, 'there would be no fools gold, were there no gold'.
This by way of agreeing that "the issue is bound up with the emphasis on 'belief'"
But what is at stake here is not what is the case. It's what to do.
So to reiterate, science cannot replace religion because science tells us how things are, while if religion has any value it is by way of telling us what to do.
And the further step is that in that very regard, religion fails.
Of course, the ritual there is an aesthetic elaboration or formalization of the ordinary event, which is itself more or less ritualized, of drinking tea together, but it's not overblown as the kinds of ceremonies I have a distaste for are.
There is no intersubjectively definitive way to determine whether something is the case regarding the veracity of purportedly pure intellectual insights into the nature of things; that is, whether the insight is real or somehow illusory cannot be determined. The advantage of everyday observation and its elaboration, science, is that, within their contexts, observations can be confirmed to be veridical or not.
When it comes to metaphysical speculations, there is no way to determine whether they are veridical. An individual may feel absolutely certain that they are seeing into the nature of things, and that may well satisfy the individual seer, but their seeing cannot be evidence for anyone else. That is the insurmountable hurdle that any philosophical attempt to do metaphysics as traditionally understood faces.
So, in summary, it could be that intellectual intuition really can give real insight into the nature of things, but how could we ever demonstrate whether this is the case or not? Also if you were so certain of some insight, would it even matter to you whether it's truth could be discursively, empirically or logically confirmed. Judging from my own experience I would say not. It only becomes a problem if you wish to demonstrate it philosophically to others.
The "gold' analogy from Rumi seems to fall down on examination. On the one hand we can learn to recognize the difference, just as we may be thought to be able to learn to intuitively recognize the truth or falsity of metaphysical claims, but the learning in the case of being able to recognize real gold is based on sensorially perceptible attributes that can be taught and that are. being observable, unequivocal. Also, chemical tests can be done to determine whether something you might think is gold, but have not acquired the skill to be sure, is the real thing or not.
Both break things down and put things together.
Science does so with external phenomena and "religion" (in its ideal form) does so with internal phenomena.
Your OP can be interpreted as:
Will skepticism replace assumption?
Or:
Will the hard sciences ever replace the soft sciences?
Quoting Banno
Maybe it's a spectrum more than a hard line?
'What to do' is bound up with 'how things are' or perhaps more to the point 'what things mean'. Science does a great job of measurement, quantification and prediction, within its scope - not so much on what its discoveries mean (witness the current hand-wringing over predictive AI). Nowadays there are arguments raging in various branches of physics as to whether this or that approach or hypothesis even is science at all. Many of the disputes about interpretations of physics are also philosophical in nature. There you're starting to roam into qualitative judgement with precious little 'inter-subjective agreement' (Google Popperazi ;-) )
When doing Buddhist Studies, one of the Sanskrit terms that leapt out at me was 'yath?bh?ta?'. This is something like the quality of sagacity. "Yath?bh?ta?" can be translated as "seeing as it actually is" or "in accordance with reality." It can be used to describe a state of mind or perception that is free from illusions, misunderstandings, or bias, and that allows one to see things objectively and truthfully[sup] 1[/sup]. I suppose there are equivalents in Western languages, perhaps 'Veritas' being one. Arguably, the whole idea of scientific detachment arose from this. But the difference is that post-Galilean science is predicated on the separation of observer from observed, the distinction between primary and secondary qualities, and the divorce of fact and value, among very many other things . This stance amounts to a kind of implicit metaphysic with its baseline assumptions being, as Polanyi said, the boundary conditions for science.
But the over-arching insight characteristic of sagacity arises from a very different kind of mentality or type of consciousness. There are those who say that some of the ancient Greek philosophers - Parmenides and Plotinus come to mind - embodied that kind of sagacity. But then, many of their ideas became assimilated by Christianity and subsequently abandoned on account of that association. And now science has stepped into the vacuum caused by that absence, but without anything like the philosophical depth that they used to embody.
Quoting Janus
But surely the cultural context is fundamental to that. Our culture does have an agreed basis, and that is scientific method. But the problem, as I mentioned already, is that it methodically excludes the qualitative (not to mention 'the immeasurable'). Different cultures have other standards and frameworks and plenty of scope for intersubjective validation according to those frameworks. Heck, it's practically what 'culture' means. But Western culture, so-called, has an uncanny knack for the dissolution of all and any frameworks. That is what John Vervaeke means by 'the meaning crisis'. I mean, yay science!, computers are great, as is dentistry and penicillin and innummerable other inventions, but the 'scientific worldview' is another matter altogether. But then
One of the better, current books I read on this is Defragmenting Modernity, Paul Tyson.
Something form Hanna Arendt:
What I meant was that everyday empirical observations are intersubjectively confirmable, and this doesn't require a cultural context. For example: "It is raining", "the mammoth is behind that hill", "hear that thunder" and so on. I think basic scientific method is an extension of this; we must observe what is happening accurately, and once we have collated accurate data we can conjecture as to the explanations for the phenomena observed. Then we have more accurate observations to make to check if the predictions entailed by our hypotheses obtain.
These kinds of empirical observation, as far as I can tell, are the only things that can be directly confirmed intersubjectively. We find out we are wrong on those occasions (perhaps very rare) by checking with others. If no one else sees that it is raining, or the mammoth behind the hill or hears the thunder, then I might conclude that I have been hallucinating.
As to intellectual intuition, I take it that a proponent would say that it is possible to directly see metaphysical truth. Kant was one of, if not the, first to deny that possibility, the point being that maybe we can, but we cannot demonstrate empirically, logically or discursively that we can, so it remains a matter of belief. I can't see how that can be denied. I can't see any kind of rational argument against it, but I'm open to hearing one.
Kant says we have practical, not pure, reason to believe in God, freedom and immortality, so he understands that it remains a matter of faith. That was his project, to discover the limits of reason in order to make way for faith.
Quoting Janus
I think the kind of 'direct seeing' we're discussing is more characteristic of the mystical traditions. As you know I have huge admiration for Kant, but I can't help but feel something his missing from his rather dessicated account of the a priori, which often amounts to nothing more than competence in mathematics and logic. And also recall that Kant's critique ushered in a novel form of of critical metaphysics, unlike positivism which sought to completely reject it (and which is still very much part of modern discourse).
I'll mention again the essay by Edward Conze on Buddhist philosophy and its European parallels, where he says that in classical philosophy, East and West, there was recognition of an hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more real, because more exalted, than others; and that the wise have found a wisdom which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that there is a rare and unordinary faculty in them by which they can attain insight into those domains - through the Prajñ?p?ramit? of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the Sophia of the Greeks, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.
Quoting Banno
Its not science per se that is focused on the notion of what is the case, it is propositional logic. Science has the flexibility to extricate itself from the philosophical presuppositions of proportional logic, because it is inextricably tied to philosophy itself and historical movement of philosophical thinking.
Freeing itself from propositional logic is a matter of recognizing the priority of what is at stake and at issue over what is the case. Without such grounding there cant be a coherent case in the first place. Ascertaining what is at stake and at issue is also prior to determining what to do. Kuhninan normal science plods uncreatively through what is the case, locked into a particular framework of belief , while revolutionary science determines freshly what is at stake and at issue, by shifting the frame of belief, thereby determining freshly how to intervene in the world and build new niches. Science is fundamentally an endeavor of praxis, production and performance rather than disengaged epistemological knowledge. We know the world by doing, by intervening and making changes in it. The invented world then talks back to us, changing our frame of belief.
In sum, the philosophically creative, revolutionary impetus of science gives us new ways of determining what to do by freeing itself from logics freezing of the movement of nature down to what is the case. How religious belief differs from philosophical belief is a complex issue. I would just say that the way belief operates to both ground and change religion, philosophy and science reveals more commonalities than differences at a superordinate level of analysis.
Some things survive and others not, it matters little since the religion isn't practiced anymore. Midsommar still means something to people, but it means nothing for anyone in terms of pagan beliefs. Other pagan traditions and rituals that had more belief built into them are of course gone.
Quoting Janus
And this is what I mean. Increase the incentive for people to do stuff like that, it is healthy for the community and individual in a society. But for that to happen we need less work hours filling up our lives with stress and lost time.
Quoting Janus
Because this spiritualism and supernatural beliefs produce negatives in other areas. Why do we need them? It's not prejudice it's looking at the positives of religion and removing the negatives. There's no wonder that smaller spiritual movements today in the West are dominant in other factors like fact-resistance and conspiracy theories. The focus on supernatural stuff can make people invent practices that aren't positive for the self or the community.
There's no point in having those things when the positives of ritual behavior and traditions can exist without supernatural angles.
Quoting Wayfarer
Except I'm more advocating the removal of anything that reinstates religious themes and iconography. Rituals and traditions doesn't need a church.
Like "karesansui". For example, having the time and consistency of focusing on a long process for making tea each morning is a form of ritual. The problem is that our modern world has removed much of the time required for having such rituals. We stress to the next thing all the time, never standing still. If we lower the amount of time we work each week, people will be able to give time to common day rituals that help meditate the mind and ground it.
What I'm advocating for is a society that culturally have a focus on these types of things. Just like we have a bedroom for sleep and society is built around our need for sleep, we could shape society to give people time and incentive to include such rituals into daily life.
Quoting Wayfarer
Of course, but I'd argue that to be a different issue. The frame of mind a person have on existence is an existential one, but I focused on the practical benefits of rituals and traditions. I don't think we need supernatural stories that inflate people's view about themselves as profound. I even think that such stories can inflate our ego as a species so much that we forget the importance of ecology and being in sync with the environment.
For instance, many native and cultural practices in African nations have a focus on man being equal to nature. So they developed farming techniques that were in sync with the ecology of the environment, instead of dealing with it as if they were masters of the land. It's this inflated ego that many nations that formed in the west have from religious stories of man being above nature that have formed an inability to balance our society towards nature. Climate change, or rather the unwillingness to actually do what is necessary to fix the problems, is probably rooted in this mentality that has been deeply planted by these religious stories.
Today, African strategies for farming have started to become important for sustainability because it's a deeply rooted knowledge that we benefit from being transformed into large scale practices.
So I don't think religious stories are important other than being used and considered like normal stories, never confused to be real, but allegorical.
Quoting Wayfarer
As in my initial post, I don't think it will replace religion because they are two different things. Moral judgements doesn't need religion either since we've perfectly invented moral tenets without the need for religion. Most of our modern laws are based on philosophers ideas on ethics, not religious. We don't need religion to become morally balanced and looking at what mostly polarizes the world into conflict, religion is up there. Science can't help with morals, except the study on how we biologically functions in terms of it, but philosophy can handle questions of morality.
Point being, there are a number of cultures who's religions were less supernatural and more focused on nature, functioning well or even better than other types of religion in terms of practical applications and existential guidance.
That we can't rid ourselves of religious beliefs and fantasies because they are somehow essential to the human condition is something I think is false. Structuring society based on taking the good parts of religious practice, things proven positive for mental health and well being, and reforming them into non-religious applications, like my tea example above, would give us the benefits and remove the negatives. I am not convinced believing fantasies to be real is helpful for the individual and community, it is basically the same as believing in conspiracy theories and no one that is morally balanced would argue that conspiracy theories is a good condition. Some could say that conspiracy theories are good because they focus us with a needed skepticism of our surroundings in order for us to ask the right questions, but it's this difference that I'm talking about. We don't need the conspiracy theory, we just need to become better at skepticism without it. We don't need religion for morality, we need to focus on morality itself. We don't need religion for rituals and traditions, we just need to form society in a way that includes similar practices in order to increase mental health and well being.
We don't need a church or any such structures, we need a culture that gives room for contemplation in itself. Nothing of that has to do with science replacing religion, it has to do with us not needing religion to cover the positives religion provides. It is a society that we don't really have right now.
Quoting Art48
Their function and purpose are totally different.
Yes. Our problem as philosophers is to discriminate between "genuine insight" and "fake insight". For example, Einstein is generally regarded as an insightful scientist. As a theoretician, he didn't do the lab work, but seemed to intuitively see the general implications of the various bits of evidence --- to see the whole as a complete system of parts. Since his insights were about physical things & processes though, their genuiness can be proven by empirical testing. Yet, metaphysical ideas can only be tested by the "iron sharpens iron" method of comparative opinions.
Unfortunately, most philosophical "mysteries" -- such as First Cause or Consciousness -- are not so easy to prove. That's why Aristotle developed a formal Logic to help us see if the parts add-up to a genuine whole. Religious doctrines typically make sense in the context of their own premises. But, over time, some of those dogmatic premises fail the test of other contexts, other opinions (e.g. Protestant Reformation). Thus, our modern context -- for evaluation of dogma -- includes a whole world of enduring or failing doctrines. So, unlike medieval peasants, we have alternative doctrines to test our personal beliefs against. But it's up to each thinker to provide his own insight. Fortunately, intuition can be cultivated with practice ; even by us non-geniuses. :smile:
Insight refers to the ability to understand and gain a deep understanding of something, often through intuition or a sudden realization. It is the ability to see beyond the surface level of a problem or situation, and to grasp its underlying meaning or significance.
https://onlinephilosophy.org/insight
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. ___Albert Einstein
Einstein :
The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science.
https://www.learning-mind.com/albert-einstein-quotes/
Note --- Mystery is motivation, not conclusion.
:up:
"The opposite" of science is pseudoscience. As @Banno more bluntly alludes to ...
[quote=Galileo Galilei]The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.[/quote]
suggesting that 'dogma & bigotry' obstruct free inquiry (i.e. reflective practice).
Education is also hierarchal thinking. Democracy is also hierarchal thinking, communism too, and the great pyramids in their embodied structure/architecture. And the act of prioritisation, value and importance: fundamentals vs. trivialities.
Hierarchy is in this sense framing or associating things and their relationships in a logical/rational way - structured in sets and subsets. Like taxonomy.
Ie "knowing" of how reality is from the perception of one's internal/mental paradigm.
It seems all awareness of anything external or conceptual: be it religion, science or otherwise, relies on a hierarchical framework with "I am" as a singular, base element.
Every question posited about reality: the "who, what, where, when, why, how" is both relative to the self and established as a hierarchy of value, importance etc to self. The asker/ questioner - The floor of the hierarchy of information and knowledge.
Something fundamental and undoubtable - a rock from which to speculate on the correct or appropriate arrangement of all other things and ideas, is the self. Being.
Where does ethics fall into this? Is it pseudoscience? I certainly can't conceive of how science proves an objective ethics, or much ethics at all for that matter. Other than the knowledge one can use ethically... Or not (cough* nuclear bomb* cough).
And yet somehow, ethics dictates (thankfully so) what science experiments are permissable and what ones are outright savage.
I would not go as far as to frame "all else" in reference to science as "pseudoscience". Be careful here, science is a tool, not the be-all-and-end-all of the human condition and experience.
Spirituality, moral compass, conscience and/or innate intuition serves (if not dogmatic religion, agreed) as a neccesary and important interlocutor to "total free and un-moderated scientific pursuit - the likes of testing on others without their consent for example.
Ethics is a reflective practice (which I mentioned previously) with normative implications similiar to aesthetics. Non-propositional (often suppositional) and pragmatic.
My first post on this thread, p. 1 ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/803960
No. It's philosophy.
Agreed. However how then is there an "opposite to science".
Quoting 180 Proof
For me its not "science or..." but rather "science and..." which goes to make the myriad healthy selection (multiple and equal) tools we have to understand nature and ourselves.
For me the term "pseudoscience" is a fancy way of disregarding/dismissing or making inferior or supposedly obsolete all other pursuits outside the realm of science, philosophy ofc being one of them.
Science has such a high regard for itself at this point that I wonder if its not already stepping beyond it's bounds/purview, ie being used as a devisive tool to manipulate, intimidate or impose on equally noble and important pursuits, reflected by the use of the term "scientists say" to establish "gospel-level authority" on any subject.
I find that profoundly ironic.
The full circle doth really come about.
I have no objections to scientific endeavour. It is wonderful, within reason. And has garnered society with all sorts of insights, tech, innovations, inventions and luxuries. But I do believe it fuels itself off its own previous merit, and is beginning to see no bounds in its scope, when really it is not all knowing, but rather "objectively knowing", subjective intuitions, emotions, feelings as well as ethical consideration, freedom of belief and freedom of speech and personal insights/wisdoms removed.
Spirituality as a conception from innate observation (individual observations, intuitions and understandings) has always had a place in human history. I fear the day it does not.
Balance = everything. (Objective and subjective inclusive.)
Not "opposite TO" (i.e. opposition) but opposite OF is what I wrote. Opposite of science ... of knowledge ... of explanation ... of truth-telling ... If not 'pseudoscience', then what is the opposite OF science? :chin:
I also don't exclude other intellectual or cultural endeavors e.g. history, music, poetry, philosophy, comparative studies, mathematics, sports, politics, etc.
The term means 'false science' or making explanatory claims which fail to cannot explain anything. I'm not using the term in a polemical fashion or for rhetorical effect, though it can be used that way as you point out.
I would say there was a belief in a hierarchy of persons and a hierarchy of levels of reality and that the wise have a "rare and unordinary faculty in them by which they can attain insight into those domains" rather than a "recognition", because the latter terms assumes that there is a truth to be recognized, and yet that is the very point at issue.
The Buddhist, Parmenidean, Greek, Spinozan and Hegelian ideas that you enumerate, are not shown to be true simply by virtue of having been thought, and the idea that "true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents" is very clearly a faith, not reason, based belief.
Quoting Christoffer
I'm yet to be convinced that the practices and the attendant beliefs can be separated. But in any case, maybe many people want to live in what you would call a faith-based fantasy world regarding metaphysical beliefs, and what would be wrong with that if that is what they want and even need, if it benefits them and does no harm to others?
You say that because of your faith in the unerring testimony of the senses. Yet the fact that there might be a woolly mammoth behind a hill (or not) is not sufficient for drawing a conclusion about the overall nature of the human condition.
Alfred North Whitehead argued that faith plays an important role in science. In "Science and the Modern World" (1925), he said that "faith is the foundation of all coherence and stability, and of all progress." He believed that science cannot operate without some basic assumptions or principles that are not themselves subject to empirical verification, and that these assumptions must be taken on faith, that science rests on a metaphysical foundation, which includes beliefs about the nature of reality, causality, and the reliability of sense perception. These metaphysical assumptions are not themselves subject to empirical verification but are instead based on faith in the rationality of the universe and in the ability of human beings to understand it.
I wonder if this is a bit of a stretch. At least with science, for the most part, we are able to identify regularities and make predictions. There's nothing available like this for religious faith - the claims, the fruits of that faith are not repeatable or experienced publicly. I think it might be a better comparison to say that religion deals in faith and science deals in reasonable expectations. Metaphysical assumptions underpinning the scientific enterprise are a different matter again and a good scientist when pushed on these might say, 'I don't know,' rather that the faithful's answer to everything, 'God did it.'
That's empiricism 101. I think Whitehead was quite aware of that when he wrote the book. I think the point is that empiricism itself always starts with excluding factors that are not under consideration for this or that hypotheses. Those are what Polanyi describes as the boundary conditions of science - the factors that are taken into account at the outset as relevant to the specific subject of the observation or experiment. And they are generally concerned with matters that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by observation and inference. In that sense, religious attitudes which seek to influence empirical outcomes such as praying for someone's recovery or good fortune in the lottery, are easily disconfirmed by straightforward empiricism. But are they the most important or only religious claims that are at issue? What about a maxim such as it being greater to give than to receive, or that one ought to tend to the sick and poor. Are they subject to empirical analysis? There are many others that fall under that general heading. The Dalai Lama once said (in his book on science) that should science show that any of the tenets of Buddhism are empirically invalid, then they should be changed. But so far that hasn't occurred (although for sure many elements of traditional Buddhist cosmology have fallen by the wayside.)
It's missing something, but it's hard to argue, in today's age, that ancient stories are what is needed to scratch that very important spiritual itch.
We may need something rather new, but I doubt science can do it.
My faith in the senses is only relative to the collective representation we call the phenomenal world, and I don't think they are infallible either. It is intersubjective testimony and agreement that drives our normative conceptions of reality.
I don't believe any definitive conclusion about "the overall nature of the human condition" can be drawn. We may all draw our own various conclusions, but they are subjective and driven by far more than just reason.
I agree that faith plays a role in science; it too relies on assumptions which cannot be emprically demonstrated. But the thing with science that impresses is that predictions are so often fulfilled, and science has grown into an immense network of coherent and consistent understandings, all of which are nonetheless defeasible, and any of which may be falsified or become redundant if the paradigm changes.
All that said, science cannot answer the questions that matter most to us (or at least many of us), so there is plenty of room for faith, and in fact faith inevitably plays a significant role in all of our lives, so it is not to be denigrated or despised.
Quoting Wayfarer
Metaphysical speculations certainly play, have played, a significant role in science, particularly in abductive reasoning, but established theories and practices are not reliant on metaphysical assumptions, since it is possible to just "shut up and calculate" if that is your wont as a scientist.
What?
I see science as the way to study a subject.
If history isn't science, how come we accept certain historical events as facts?
Physical studies has theoretical explanations just like history, politics, psychology, that evolve or are discarded over time, and can not be proven, but more or less work or don't, at explaining what goes on.
As I see it, any weakness pointed out in social science is present in the physical science.