4 ms·

A faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind

A faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind of greater meaning to life.

tivert 3y ago
> A faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind of greater meaning to life. You're making a false (and biased) distinction. You almost certainly have been indoctrinated into valuing the thing you label "rigor," and your faith in it stems from that indoctrination. Your position is just an obscured version of "my gods are the true ones, and all others are false or inferior, because my gods are mine."
- Supermancho 3y ago
  It's a way of drawing a new line in the sand. There are plenty of religions that don't have indoctrination (all have rituals) or a desire to find a greater meaning. eg Abrahamic religions don't promote a search for greater meaning.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    Almost all people are religious because they were indoctrinated into it as kids.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      Teaching and indoctrination are different things. The keyword criticality is very common among many religious schools. There is a difference in rigor for those arguments, but they are allowed. This is why many people fall out of their ancestral religion.
      - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
        > Teaching and indoctrination are different things. The keyword criticality is very common among many religious schools. Even if a religious school is teaching critical thinking regarding the religion, and I'm skeptical of that, the church (or equivalent) and parents likely are not.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  It's not false, and any bias is irrelevant since the distinction is accurate. People can be indoctrinated into science, I suppose, but more often it's something rational minds arrive at. The same is not true for religion. A rational adherence to science isn't a worship of "gods" it's the understanding that it's a rational approach to gaining knowledge and understanding the universe. 'gods' don't enter into it unless they are the subject of a hypothesis/theory/experiment.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > People can be indoctrinated into science, I suppose, but more often it's something rational minds arrive at. Come on. That's myth that beggars belief. Did you somehow independently arrive at science by yourself as a rational mind? Of course not. It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into). > A rational adherence to science isn't a worship of "gods" it's the understanding that it's a rational approach to gaining knowledge and understanding the universe. And religion is (frequently) the understanding that gods should be worshiped in a certain way, which is also totally rational within that understanding. > 'gods' don't enter into it unless they are the subject of a hypothesis/theory/experiment. You're taking my statement too literally. It's very hard to get out of one's own mindset to see it for what it is .
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > Come on. That's myth that beggars belief. Hardly. > Did you somehow independently arrive at science by yourself as a rational mind? Of course not. Actually, yes. I was raised in a religious household and rejected religion, and absolutely 'discovered' science. > It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into). That's simply not true. These attempts to equate science with a religion are always so disingenuous and show a fundamental misunderstanding. > And religion is (frequently) the understanding that gods should be worshiped in a certain way, which is also totally rational within that understanding. It's the faith in gods based on absolutely nothing which is irrational. Come on. > You're taking my statement too literally. No, I got what you were saying, I was just making a point to refute your false equivalence.

A faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind of greater meaning to life.

tivert 3y ago

> A faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind of greater meaning to life. You're making a false (and biased) distinction. You almost certainly have been indoctrinated into valuing the thing you label "rigor," and your faith in it stems from that indoctrination. Your position is just an obscured version of "my gods are the true ones, and all others are false or inferior, because my gods are mine."

Supermancho 3y ago
It's a way of drawing a new line in the sand. There are plenty of religions that don't have indoctrination (all have rituals) or a desire to find a greater meaning. eg Abrahamic religions don't promote a search for greater meaning.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  Almost all people are religious because they were indoctrinated into it as kids.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    Teaching and indoctrination are different things. The keyword criticality is very common among many religious schools. There is a difference in rigor for those arguments, but they are allowed. This is why many people fall out of their ancestral religion.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > Teaching and indoctrination are different things. The keyword criticality is very common among many religious schools. Even if a religious school is teaching critical thinking regarding the religion, and I'm skeptical of that, the church (or equivalent) and parents likely are not.
PrimeMcFly 3y ago
It's not false, and any bias is irrelevant since the distinction is accurate. People can be indoctrinated into science, I suppose, but more often it's something rational minds arrive at. The same is not true for religion. A rational adherence to science isn't a worship of "gods" it's the understanding that it's a rational approach to gaining knowledge and understanding the universe. 'gods' don't enter into it unless they are the subject of a hypothesis/theory/experiment.
- tivert 3y ago
  > People can be indoctrinated into science, I suppose, but more often it's something rational minds arrive at. Come on. That's myth that beggars belief. Did you somehow independently arrive at science by yourself as a rational mind? Of course not. It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into). > A rational adherence to science isn't a worship of "gods" it's the understanding that it's a rational approach to gaining knowledge and understanding the universe. And religion is (frequently) the understanding that gods should be worshiped in a certain way, which is also totally rational within that understanding. > 'gods' don't enter into it unless they are the subject of a hypothesis/theory/experiment. You're taking my statement too literally. It's very hard to get out of one's own mindset to see it for what it is .
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > Come on. That's myth that beggars belief. Hardly. > Did you somehow independently arrive at science by yourself as a rational mind? Of course not. Actually, yes. I was raised in a religious household and rejected religion, and absolutely 'discovered' science. > It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into). That's simply not true. These attempts to equate science with a religion are always so disingenuous and show a fundamental misunderstanding. > And religion is (frequently) the understanding that gods should be worshiped in a certain way, which is also totally rational within that understanding. It's the faith in gods based on absolutely nothing which is irrational. Come on. > You're taking my statement too literally. No, I got what you were saying, I was just making a point to refute your false equivalence.