4 ms·

I propose that religion incorporates the most accepted science of the time it was established. We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates t

I propose that religion incorporates the most accepted science of the time it was established. We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates the current state of accepted science. It benefits the leadership of any organization to give its members a reason for its existence. The better the reason, the greater chance of growth. Religions aim to provide the complete package - rules for society and the individual and rules for life and what comes after it.

djokkataja 4y ago
I think it could be handy if there was a "religion" that looked at the various ways that historical religions are beneficial for their adherents (in practices and beliefs) and tried to distill things down and build some new things up from whatever gets worked out in that way. From a secular perspective, religions contain quite a bit of invented material, so this doesn't seem that unreasonable. And this could potentially be combined with more scientific perspectives, where the whole set of beliefs and practices can be updated as new things are learned, though presumably the most foundational elements wouldn't change as much.
- KMag 4y ago
  What if it turns out that for many actions, the game-theoretically optimal strategy for the individual isn't optimal for the society, and people's gut instincts are reasonably close to game theoretic analysis? In other words, what if it turns out that it's really objectively best for society if everyone is tricked into being good?
  - djokkataja 4y ago
    Even for something as simple as the prisoner's dilemma, there's quite a bit of variety in both situations and agents, so how do you decide what the "optimal" game theoretic strategy is for actual people in much more complex situations in reality? I'm not sure that it's tricking people, because society is people. I mean, suppose that people aren't tricked into being good, and then society is worse off. How could everyone in the worse off society be doing better than everyone in the better off society? This doesn't seem like a trick to me so much as adopting a different perspective.
    - KMag 4y ago
      I'm talking about cases where society's best outcome isn't a Nash equilibrium, but due to deception about the rewards of different actions, the socially optimal solution appears to be a Nash equilibrium. Some citizens would be better off if they defected, and society worse off, but due to deception, they don't realize they'd be better off.
pqs 4y ago
That is strange. There is no contradiction between Catholicism and science. Genesis is not a scientific book. It is not a scientific treatise on cosmology, at all.
- igouy 4y ago
  Church teaching about Adam and Eve and sin?
  - pqs 4y ago
    Sin is not a scientific concept. The story of Adam and Eve is about the origin of sin. It is not a scientific theory. The Catholic Church does not deny the truth of scientific theories of evolution.
    - igouy 4y ago
      How does the story about the origin of sin work without a primordial Adam and Eve?

djokkataja 4y ago

I think it could be handy if there was a "religion" that looked at the various ways that historical religions are beneficial for their adherents (in practices and beliefs) and tried to distill things down and build some new things up from whatever gets worked out in that way. From a secular perspective, religions contain quite a bit of invented material, so this doesn't seem that unreasonable. And this could potentially be combined with more scientific perspectives, where the whole set of beliefs and practices can be updated as new things are learned, though presumably the most foundational elements wouldn't change as much.

KMag 4y ago
What if it turns out that for many actions, the game-theoretically optimal strategy for the individual isn't optimal for the society, and people's gut instincts are reasonably close to game theoretic analysis? In other words, what if it turns out that it's really objectively best for society if everyone is tricked into being good?
- djokkataja 4y ago
  Even for something as simple as the prisoner's dilemma, there's quite a bit of variety in both situations and agents, so how do you decide what the "optimal" game theoretic strategy is for actual people in much more complex situations in reality? I'm not sure that it's tricking people, because society is people. I mean, suppose that people aren't tricked into being good, and then society is worse off. How could everyone in the worse off society be doing better than everyone in the better off society? This doesn't seem like a trick to me so much as adopting a different perspective.
  - KMag 4y ago
    I'm talking about cases where society's best outcome isn't a Nash equilibrium, but due to deception about the rewards of different actions, the socially optimal solution appears to be a Nash equilibrium. Some citizens would be better off if they defected, and society worse off, but due to deception, they don't realize they'd be better off.

pqs 4y ago

That is strange. There is no contradiction between Catholicism and science. Genesis is not a scientific book. It is not a scientific treatise on cosmology, at all.

igouy 4y ago
Church teaching about Adam and Eve and sin?
- pqs 4y ago
  Sin is not a scientific concept. The story of Adam and Eve is about the origin of sin. It is not a scientific theory. The Catholic Church does not deny the truth of scientific theories of evolution.
  - igouy 4y ago
    How does the story about the origin of sin work without a primordial Adam and Eve?