4 ms·

Honestly I feel like the science community’s disregard for religion has caused them to completely fail at dealing with human psychology. Science has spent the l

Honestly I feel like the science community’s disregard for religion has caused them to completely fail at dealing with human psychology. Science has spent the last 1.5 centuries presenting itself as a counterpoint to religion, but they fail to understand that religion is just an early attempt at talking about the subconscious. So the science community continually misidentifies issues stemming from the subconscious as pseudoscience. Jung was right.

dylan604 3y ago
This is stated as if religion has never had it's own pseudo-science/medicine beliefs that conflicted with actual issues. "we don't know what's going on, so it must be a possession" type of things when it could have been something more more like schizophrenia or some other medical condition.
- elwell 3y ago
  > "we don't know what's going on, so it must be a possession" type of things when it could have been something more more like schizophrenia or some other medical condition. Maybe the spiritual representation is more 'accurate'. Is the concept of love more useful or the concept of oxytocin?
  - dylan604 3y ago
    >Is the concept of love more useful or the concept of oxytocin? are we trying to make someone feel better about themself or cure the problem?
- kouru225 3y ago
  I never said religion was correct. I said that science tries so hard to differentiate itself from religion that it labels anything that doesn’t appear to be logical as pseudoscience. Since the subconscious isn’t logical, subconscious issues get ignored.
barrysteve 3y ago
The science community often includes religious people. Jung may be right. He wasn't out to prove "science" wrong. He did his own thing. I haven't seen many people outside Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse seriously try and blame religion for scientific failings.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  Psychiatry is a religious community that occasionally includes scientists, but they're largely regarded as delusional or backwards, and derided or ostracized as needed.
  - kouru225 3y ago
    It’s comments like this that completely prove my point. The idea that psychiatry is “religious” is absurd.
    - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
      Well it's not a popular idea. Perhaps you're deeply immersed only in religion, or only in science, and sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. I forgive you. But it's a tale as old as time: when any community schisms, and there's a rejection of the "original traditions" the new guys limp along without 'em for a long time, and gradually, piecemeal, they realize they miss those things, or those things were essential to life, and they reinvent them and they put new names on them, but if you examine their essence then you'll see how similar they are to the "old ways". It happens within Christianity itself! All the time! Protestants spent 500 years rejecting and reviling Catholics, but then they became Mormon, and everything old is new again. What's happening in the world is a widespread secularization of nations. You know, disestablishmentarianism - the First Amendment. If no religions or allowed, or if all religions are promoted equally, then something will fill the vacuum and become re-established, you can bet your bottom dollar. Nations who attempt to outlaw and persecute religion get a somewhat bad rep. Nations who legalize all of them are literally a city upon a hill! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill The strategy of atheist states is to generally subjugate Church to control by the State. If this cannot be done, that religion must be exterminated. China's a good example, and Mexico did their part. Atheist states by no means would/could eliminate religions; they know what service is done for the masses. The State has its own flavor of religion, its own rituals and priests, sacraments and sacramentals, liturgies and rites. Look at Old Glory, baseball games, military customs, Congress in session, look at the architecture of DC and try to tell me that that's not the New Secular Athens. Psychiatry is the moral arm of the state, with temporal and spiritual power, authority, and jurisdiction over the citizenry in regards to our internal forum. Psychiatry is granted the rights to teach doctrine, to coerce sacraments, and to revoke rights. I won't elaborate on the whole picture, because your opinion won't change, but try to open your mind, eh?
dartos 3y ago
What a wild comment
tasty_freeze 3y ago
I reject your sweeping statement "science has spent the last 1.5 centuries presenting itself as a counterpoint to religion." Science is a process of trying to explain why things as they are and to predict how things will behave in the future. Many (in ye olden days nearly all) scientists have been religious. There is a conflict only when the two come to different explanations of the same thing. That conflict wasn't the goal of science, unlike what you seem to imply.
- kouru225 3y ago
  I don’t think I was implying that science intended to reject religion. I don’t think it matters what the scientific community intended though. Currently, science socially functions as a rejection of religion regardless of what the leaders of the scientific community think or say, and that social function results a bias against subconscious issues for the reason I explained in my other comments. The reasons why science functions that way are probably way too long and complicated to list (and probably are the result politics more than anything else), but you can’t tell me that that’s not true. The majority of the world think that science and religion are clashing forces, and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  - tasty_freeze 3y ago
    > The majority of the world think that science and religion are clashing forces, and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is really a broad claim. Science isn't one thing and religion isn't one thing. Both are clouds of ideas/claims/customs and there is some overlap. I'd argue that most of the time there is no conflict at all and most people don't perceive it as a "clash". There will always be people who will say that we shouldn't have invented airplanes -- God would have given us wings if he wanted man to fly, but they are in the minority. Most of the time, there is a news item that "science" has invented a battery anode that results in a battery with 20% more capacity and people cheer it and don't think it stepped on God's toes. Religious people will say that God wishes for us to not eat meat on certain days and nobody looks to science to see if that is true or not. Stephen Jay Gould was famous for his "non-overlapping magisteria" claim [1] -- which I'm arguing is true most of the time, but also see that Gould was painting way too broadly as there certainly are cases where the two are in conflict. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria

dylan604 3y ago

This is stated as if religion has never had it's own pseudo-science/medicine beliefs that conflicted with actual issues. "we don't know what's going on, so it must be a possession" type of things when it could have been something more more like schizophrenia or some other medical condition.

elwell 3y ago
> "we don't know what's going on, so it must be a possession" type of things when it could have been something more more like schizophrenia or some other medical condition. Maybe the spiritual representation is more 'accurate'. Is the concept of love more useful or the concept of oxytocin?
- dylan604 3y ago
  >Is the concept of love more useful or the concept of oxytocin? are we trying to make someone feel better about themself or cure the problem?
kouru225 3y ago
I never said religion was correct. I said that science tries so hard to differentiate itself from religion that it labels anything that doesn’t appear to be logical as pseudoscience. Since the subconscious isn’t logical, subconscious issues get ignored.

barrysteve 3y ago

The science community often includes religious people. Jung may be right. He wasn't out to prove "science" wrong. He did his own thing. I haven't seen many people outside Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse seriously try and blame religion for scientific failings.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Psychiatry is a religious community that occasionally includes scientists, but they're largely regarded as delusional or backwards, and derided or ostracized as needed.
- kouru225 3y ago
  It’s comments like this that completely prove my point. The idea that psychiatry is “religious” is absurd.
  - NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
    Well it's not a popular idea. Perhaps you're deeply immersed only in religion, or only in science, and sometimes we can't see the forest for the trees. I forgive you. But it's a tale as old as time: when any community schisms, and there's a rejection of the "original traditions" the new guys limp along without 'em for a long time, and gradually, piecemeal, they realize they miss those things, or those things were essential to life, and they reinvent them and they put new names on them, but if you examine their essence then you'll see how similar they are to the "old ways". It happens within Christianity itself! All the time! Protestants spent 500 years rejecting and reviling Catholics, but then they became Mormon, and everything old is new again. What's happening in the world is a widespread secularization of nations. You know, disestablishmentarianism - the First Amendment. If no religions or allowed, or if all religions are promoted equally, then something will fill the vacuum and become re-established, you can bet your bottom dollar. Nations who attempt to outlaw and persecute religion get a somewhat bad rep. Nations who legalize all of them are literally a city upon a hill! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_upon_a_Hill The strategy of atheist states is to generally subjugate Church to control by the State. If this cannot be done, that religion must be exterminated. China's a good example, and Mexico did their part. Atheist states by no means would/could eliminate religions; they know what service is done for the masses. The State has its own flavor of religion, its own rituals and priests, sacraments and sacramentals, liturgies and rites. Look at Old Glory, baseball games, military customs, Congress in session, look at the architecture of DC and try to tell me that that's not the New Secular Athens. Psychiatry is the moral arm of the state, with temporal and spiritual power, authority, and jurisdiction over the citizenry in regards to our internal forum. Psychiatry is granted the rights to teach doctrine, to coerce sacraments, and to revoke rights. I won't elaborate on the whole picture, because your opinion won't change, but try to open your mind, eh?

dartos 3y ago

What a wild comment

tasty_freeze 3y ago

I reject your sweeping statement "science has spent the last 1.5 centuries presenting itself as a counterpoint to religion." Science is a process of trying to explain why things as they are and to predict how things will behave in the future. Many (in ye olden days nearly all) scientists have been religious. There is a conflict only when the two come to different explanations of the same thing. That conflict wasn't the goal of science, unlike what you seem to imply.

kouru225 3y ago
I don’t think I was implying that science intended to reject religion. I don’t think it matters what the scientific community intended though. Currently, science socially functions as a rejection of religion regardless of what the leaders of the scientific community think or say, and that social function results a bias against subconscious issues for the reason I explained in my other comments. The reasons why science functions that way are probably way too long and complicated to list (and probably are the result politics more than anything else), but you can’t tell me that that’s not true. The majority of the world think that science and religion are clashing forces, and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
- tasty_freeze 3y ago
  > The majority of the world think that science and religion are clashing forces, and it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is really a broad claim. Science isn't one thing and religion isn't one thing. Both are clouds of ideas/claims/customs and there is some overlap. I'd argue that most of the time there is no conflict at all and most people don't perceive it as a "clash". There will always be people who will say that we shouldn't have invented airplanes -- God would have given us wings if he wanted man to fly, but they are in the minority. Most of the time, there is a news item that "science" has invented a battery anode that results in a battery with 20% more capacity and people cheer it and don't think it stepped on God's toes. Religious people will say that God wishes for us to not eat meat on certain days and nobody looks to science to see if that is true or not. Stephen Jay Gould was famous for his "non-overlapping magisteria" claim [1] -- which I'm arguing is true most of the time, but also see that Gould was painting way too broadly as there certainly are cases where the two are in conflict. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria