3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

tivert 3y ago
> Actually, yes. I was raised in a religious household and rejected religion, and absolutely 'discovered' science. I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it? >> It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where [most likely] 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. Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness. It's therefore a construct privileged by them. That's often accomplished by a little mental game, that works much like when a job description is written to fit a particular person and reject others. It's not very surprising to see that truth insistently denied, because to accept it would undermine the the work the construct is being used perform. Science is also a means to technology, but we're not really talking about that. > No, I got what you were saying, I was just making a point to refute your false equivalence. I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically.
- PrimeMcFly 3y ago
  > I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it? This is just semantics. > Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness. It'snot as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference. > I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically. The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > This is just semantics. Not really, because the difference is rather significant here. > It's not as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference. There's that little mental game I was referring to. > The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant. There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it.
    - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
      > Not really, because the difference is rather significant here. No, it really isn't. It's 100% semantics. The context makes the meaning clear. But how about you explain what you think the rather significant difference is to progress the discussion? So it isn't just is too/is not which it seems to be becoming. > There's that little mental game I was referring to. Sure, an accusation without basis. > There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it. No, I get it, and my reply made that clear. It seemed to have passed you by, possibly because you seem hyper-focused on semantics. As an aside, are you religious yourself? I typically only see these lines of argument from people that are and feel defensive.

tivert 3y ago

> Actually, yes. I was raised in a religious household and rejected religion, and absolutely 'discovered' science. I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it? >> It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where [most likely] 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. Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness. It's therefore a construct privileged by them. That's often accomplished by a little mental game, that works much like when a job description is written to fit a particular person and reject others. It's not very surprising to see that truth insistently denied, because to accept it would undermine the the work the construct is being used perform. Science is also a means to technology, but we're not really talking about that. > No, I got what you were saying, I was just making a point to refute your false equivalence. I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically.

PrimeMcFly 3y ago
> I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it? This is just semantics. > Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness. It'snot as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference. > I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically. The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant.
- tivert 3y ago
  > This is just semantics. Not really, because the difference is rather significant here. > It's not as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference. There's that little mental game I was referring to. > The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant. There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it.
  - PrimeMcFly 3y ago
    > Not really, because the difference is rather significant here. No, it really isn't. It's 100% semantics. The context makes the meaning clear. But how about you explain what you think the rather significant difference is to progress the discussion? So it isn't just is too/is not which it seems to be becoming. > There's that little mental game I was referring to. Sure, an accusation without basis. > There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it. No, I get it, and my reply made that clear. It seemed to have passed you by, possibly because you seem hyper-focused on semantics. As an aside, are you religious yourself? I typically only see these lines of argument from people that are and feel defensive.