3 ms·

Respectfully I'd say you've underscored my point. Your statement that "scientific worldview, which is diametrically opposed to religious culture" is itself a do

Respectfully I'd say you've underscored my point. Your statement that "scientific worldview, which is diametrically opposed to religious culture" is itself a dogma, which is one of the features of religion you claim to have surpassed as a scientific person. It is true that modern society contains pretty fundamentally opposed religious vs scientific factions. My point isn't to take sides but to point out that what you are calling religion is some kind of oppositional faction defined by rejecting scientific fact. It wasn't always the case. But you should judge the nature of religious culture objectively and scientifically, not by it's worst modern manifestations. Religious reality was originally and for thousands of years the only reality, and it's proponents would have argued as strongly against any alternating philosophy, just at you proclaim that scientific realism is reality and reject any other. My argument is that scientific culture resemblance to religious culture isn't coincidence, it's the nature of belief in social systems. Meanwhile science culture could learn worlds from religious culture which in my view was very much a science of authority and social unification. That's to say that religious cultural realism was more effective at generating belief and that's because it was a science of generating belief.

pdonis 6y ago
> Your statement that "scientific worldview, which is diametrically opposed to religious culture" is itself a dogma No, it isn't, it's a description. I described what I mean by "scientific worldview" and by "religious culture". It should be evident from my descriptions that the two things I described are diametrically opposed. I think my descriptions have fairly captured the two world views in question. If you disagree, by all means make an argument; but just calling my descriptions "dogma" is not an argument. > which is exactly the feature of religion you claim to have surpassed as a scientific person I have made no such claim. I explicitly contrasted the scientific worldview with the behavior of individual persons. I also said nothing about "surpassing" anything. > My point isn't to take sides but to point out that what you are calling religion is some kind of oppositional faction defined by rejecting scientific fact. Again, if you disagree with my description of "religious culture", by all means make an argument for a different description. My description certainly does not describe all aspects of religion; but I think I have focused in on a key aspect that makes religious culture different from the scientific worldview. > Religious reality was originally and for thousands of years the only reality The level of historical ignorance in this statement is staggering. A true statement would be that humans have had religions for as far back as we have historical evidence. But that is a much, much weaker statement than your claim here. > just at you proclaim that scientific realism is reality and reject any other I have said no such thing. I have no idea what you are responding to, but it isn't anything I said. > scientific culture resemblance to religious culture isn't coincidence Before you start making claims about why such a resemblance exists, you first have to establish that it exists. You have not done that.
- tehchromic 6y ago
  I don't mean to argue with you. If you say religion can't be fact based and aren't open to any alternate view that's scientific cultural dogma, in my opinion but also that's dogma by definition. If science can have dogma, then it has at least one similarity to religion which establishes a resemblance. I'll give an alternate definition of religion that I think is compatible with a scientific world view rather than oppositional: religion is an ancient applied science of managing authority and consent in large groups of people. That's the reality it dealt with, just as modern science might deal with materials or biology. I don't mean to give you a hard time. This topic is very difficult to talk about given the intense factions around it. But that's why it's important to talk about it even if it makes folks mad at you initial. Sorry if I irritated you.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > If you say religion can't be fact based Where have I said that? I have said that science has a much better track record of generating true beliefs than religion does. That is not the same as saying religion never generates true beliefs or never looks at facts. > religion is an ancient applied science of managing authority and consent in large groups of people This is an interesting hypothesis, but note a key implication: that this "applied science" involves generating and propagating false beliefs. And given that, an easy alternate way of contrasting the religious worldview with the scientific worldview would be that the scientific worldview does not consider generating and propagating false beliefs to be a good thing. That's not to say science never does that, just that in science, it's considered a bug, whereas in religion, by your description, it's considered a feature. Also, the term "applied science" implies that there is an actual scientific theory that is being applied. Religion does not have any theory at all about "managing authority and consent in large groups of people". It does that in practice, but it doesn't have any theory about it. So "applied science" is a misnomer in this case: a better term would be "art", as in "religion is an ancient art of managing authority and consent in large groups of people".
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      Like "Magic(k) is the Art (and Science) of causing changes to occur in conformity with will" ? Also reminds me of : "The Use and Abuse of Witchdoctors for Life" https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoctors-for-life/ https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoc...
pdonis 6y ago
> religious cultural realism was more effective at generating belief If "generating belief" allows the beliefs generated to be false, yes, I agree. Science is much more cautious about "generating belief" than religion is, so it generates fewer beliefs; but it also has a much better track record of generating true beliefs. > that's because it was a science of generating belief. You must be joking. Religion's way of "generating belief" is not informed by any kind of scientific study of how to "generate beliefs".
- tehchromic 6y ago
  Well I'm not joking. Religious methodology in building a belief generating technology was more organic than we like to think of science today, however it followed the same format as all scientific methodology: observation, question, hypothesis, experiment, modification and repeat. It also was recorded, often in aural memory but also in text, which I would say is the critical feature that differentiates modern science from more traditional scientific practices which we tend to dismiss as not science but which meet the criteria in strict methodological terms. I don't think I'll be capable of convincing you or anyone who has built their idea of science on the rejection of mythology, however it's worth considering that religious believers made the same assumption about previous cultural realities: theirs was the only right reality.
  - pm90 6y ago
    > however it's worth considering that religious believers made the same assumption about previous cultural realities: theirs was the only right reality. Science doesn’t make that assumption about Reality. In fact it makes a rather weak assumption: reality is only that which we can demonstrate and prove using the scientific method. Science only lays down the principles by which scientific discovery might be made, and leaves the description of reality as whatever the outcome of that process might be. It’s something that rational human beings enjoy because it has offered great predictive power which has benefited humanity immensely, in addition to providing theories for how the world works. The best thing about science is that it allows you to completely change the description of reality if a better theory comes up. This is one of the main reasons why this framework has been successful: it is adaptable and accepting of new realities.

pdonis 6y ago

> Your statement that "scientific worldview, which is diametrically opposed to religious culture" is itself a dogma No, it isn't, it's a description. I described what I mean by "scientific worldview" and by "religious culture". It should be evident from my descriptions that the two things I described are diametrically opposed. I think my descriptions have fairly captured the two world views in question. If you disagree, by all means make an argument; but just calling my descriptions "dogma" is not an argument. > which is exactly the feature of religion you claim to have surpassed as a scientific person I have made no such claim. I explicitly contrasted the scientific worldview with the behavior of individual persons. I also said nothing about "surpassing" anything. > My point isn't to take sides but to point out that what you are calling religion is some kind of oppositional faction defined by rejecting scientific fact. Again, if you disagree with my description of "religious culture", by all means make an argument for a different description. My description certainly does not describe all aspects of religion; but I think I have focused in on a key aspect that makes religious culture different from the scientific worldview. > Religious reality was originally and for thousands of years the only reality The level of historical ignorance in this statement is staggering. A true statement would be that humans have had religions for as far back as we have historical evidence. But that is a much, much weaker statement than your claim here. > just at you proclaim that scientific realism is reality and reject any other I have said no such thing. I have no idea what you are responding to, but it isn't anything I said. > scientific culture resemblance to religious culture isn't coincidence Before you start making claims about why such a resemblance exists, you first have to establish that it exists. You have not done that.

tehchromic 6y ago
I don't mean to argue with you. If you say religion can't be fact based and aren't open to any alternate view that's scientific cultural dogma, in my opinion but also that's dogma by definition. If science can have dogma, then it has at least one similarity to religion which establishes a resemblance. I'll give an alternate definition of religion that I think is compatible with a scientific world view rather than oppositional: religion is an ancient applied science of managing authority and consent in large groups of people. That's the reality it dealt with, just as modern science might deal with materials or biology. I don't mean to give you a hard time. This topic is very difficult to talk about given the intense factions around it. But that's why it's important to talk about it even if it makes folks mad at you initial. Sorry if I irritated you.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > If you say religion can't be fact based Where have I said that? I have said that science has a much better track record of generating true beliefs than religion does. That is not the same as saying religion never generates true beliefs or never looks at facts. > religion is an ancient applied science of managing authority and consent in large groups of people This is an interesting hypothesis, but note a key implication: that this "applied science" involves generating and propagating false beliefs. And given that, an easy alternate way of contrasting the religious worldview with the scientific worldview would be that the scientific worldview does not consider generating and propagating false beliefs to be a good thing. That's not to say science never does that, just that in science, it's considered a bug, whereas in religion, by your description, it's considered a feature. Also, the term "applied science" implies that there is an actual scientific theory that is being applied. Religion does not have any theory at all about "managing authority and consent in large groups of people". It does that in practice, but it doesn't have any theory about it. So "applied science" is a misnomer in this case: a better term would be "art", as in "religion is an ancient art of managing authority and consent in large groups of people".
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Like "Magic(k) is the Art (and Science) of causing changes to occur in conformity with will" ? Also reminds me of : "The Use and Abuse of Witchdoctors for Life" https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoctors-for-life/ https://samzdat.com/2017/06/19/the-use-and-abuse-of-witchdoc...

pdonis 6y ago

> religious cultural realism was more effective at generating belief If "generating belief" allows the beliefs generated to be false, yes, I agree. Science is much more cautious about "generating belief" than religion is, so it generates fewer beliefs; but it also has a much better track record of generating true beliefs. > that's because it was a science of generating belief. You must be joking. Religion's way of "generating belief" is not informed by any kind of scientific study of how to "generate beliefs".

tehchromic 6y ago
Well I'm not joking. Religious methodology in building a belief generating technology was more organic than we like to think of science today, however it followed the same format as all scientific methodology: observation, question, hypothesis, experiment, modification and repeat. It also was recorded, often in aural memory but also in text, which I would say is the critical feature that differentiates modern science from more traditional scientific practices which we tend to dismiss as not science but which meet the criteria in strict methodological terms. I don't think I'll be capable of convincing you or anyone who has built their idea of science on the rejection of mythology, however it's worth considering that religious believers made the same assumption about previous cultural realities: theirs was the only right reality.
- pm90 6y ago
  > however it's worth considering that religious believers made the same assumption about previous cultural realities: theirs was the only right reality. Science doesn’t make that assumption about Reality. In fact it makes a rather weak assumption: reality is only that which we can demonstrate and prove using the scientific method. Science only lays down the principles by which scientific discovery might be made, and leaves the description of reality as whatever the outcome of that process might be. It’s something that rational human beings enjoy because it has offered great predictive power which has benefited humanity immensely, in addition to providing theories for how the world works. The best thing about science is that it allows you to completely change the description of reality if a better theory comes up. This is one of the main reasons why this framework has been successful: it is adaptable and accepting of new realities.