https://www.rawstory.com/2018/12/yes-war-science-religion/
QuoteYes, there is a war between science and religion
QuoteIn the end, it’s irrational to decide what’s true in your daily life using empirical evidence, but then rely on wishful-thinking and ancient superstitions to judge the “truths†undergirding your faith. This leads to a mind (no matter how scientifically renowned) at war with itself, producing the cognitive dissonance that prompts accommodationism. If you decide to have good reasons for holding any beliefs, then you must choose between faith and reason. And as facts become increasingly important for the welfare of our species and our planet, people should see faith for what it is: not a virtue but a defect.
Amen!!
Please don't fuck them, they might reproduce.
While I agree to fuck all religious, I fuck the irreligious too. It all depends on how pretty they are.
So Minimalist, what can you do to maintain your edginess? Swallow fire or swords maybe?
yep, fuck all forms of indoctrination, from religions to Marxism
Quote from: Allie JacksonWhy can’t I leave religion alone? Because it storms its way into my children’s schools, it weasels its way into my government and its followers demand I can’t do what I want with my body. Right now people are being tortured, beaten, raped and murdered in the name of religion. Is that reason enough?
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2018, 01:48:19 PM
Why can’t I leave religion alone? Because it storms its way into my children’s schools, it weasels its way into my government and its followers demand I can’t do what I want with my body. Right now people are being tortured, beaten, raped and murdered in the name of religion. Is that reason enough?
its true, thats what religion does. But so does most invasive political and social ideologies today.
We can't have a well balanced society when only one side wants to force its imprint on everyone.
"...only one side"? Which side would that be? Seems to me that all sides want to force their imprint on everyone.
Quote from: Unbeliever on December 22, 2018, 02:46:45 PM
"...only one side"? Which side would that be? Seems to me that all sides want to force their imprint on everyone.
I'm referring to any extreme ideology from their perspective being 'the one'.
Quote from: Munch on December 22, 2018, 02:57:10 PM
I'm referring to any extreme ideology from their perspective being 'the one'.
False messiahs, every one. I promise you utopia, I bring you dystopia.
It's not a war between science and religion, but between science and utter ignorance.... but I repeat myself.
Well, religion is utter ignorance, willful utter ignorance. Actually, it's even worse than that, since believing wrong stuff is worse than not knowing real stuff.
I never understood the atheist obsession with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, nor the same for theists.
Religion gets plenty of things right... and perhaps gets those things more right than "atheism" does. Yes, there are fantastic philosophical and moral atheist philosophies... but how many atheists actually spend time learning them vs spending time obsessing over science, politics and other things beyond their control that, while good to know, have little to no practical effect on their life?
Quote from: Shiranu on February 09, 2019, 07:45:37 PM
I never understood the atheist obsession with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, nor the same for theists.
Religion gets plenty of things right... and perhaps gets those things more right than "atheism" does. Yes, there are fantastic philosophical and moral atheist philosophies... but how many atheists actually spend time learning them vs spending time obsessing over science, politics and other things beyond their control that, while good to know, have little to no practical effect on their life?
Idunno. Can't speak for statistics on that. But i can't say i personally was more 'philosophically attuned' back when i was a catholic.
Having increased the size of my world view to include the very smallest all the way to the very largest (at least as well as I've so far been able to do), I find that I matter not as far as size is concerned, but as far as observing the universe (even vicariously, through the eyes of scientists) I am doing what is good for me, since I am the universe observing itself (as are we all). If all I can do is observe, then I will do that to the best of my ability. It's really the only true meaning I can see for myself, and it helps me to generate meaning in my life.
But knowing the true state of things from a Planck length/time to at least as far out as the edge of the observable universe gives me a wonderful perspective on what really matters, which is nothing at all, except the sheer fact of existence itself.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 09, 2019, 07:45:37 PM
Yes, there are fantastic philosophical and moral atheist philosophies...
I am unfamiliar with any fantastic philosophies.....ours are simply more grounded in common sense and actual facts. But perhaps there is something I am unfamiliar with. Just want to clarify..for me anyway.....that I don't think "atheism" has any philosophy that is fantastic.
Quotebut how many atheists actually spend time learning them vs spending time obsessing over science, politics and other things beyond their control that, while good to know, have little to no practical effect on their life?
I am not arguing or even objecting to this, this statement to you and the others probably makes perfect sense, but I can't seem to understand what you are saying here.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 09, 2019, 07:45:37 PM
I never understood the atheist obsession with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, nor the same for theists.
Religion gets plenty of things right... and perhaps gets those things more right than "atheism" does. Yes, there are fantastic philosophical and moral atheist philosophies... but how many atheists actually spend time learning them vs spending time obsessing over science, politics and other things beyond their control that, while good to know, have little to no practical effect on their life?
What religion gets right pales when compared with the destruction it causes. That is too high a price for society to pay. I would think that human secularist organizations would be better than any theist group.
QuoteI am unfamiliar with any fantastic philosophies...
Stoicism, Absurdism, Charvaka, Hedonism, Sensualism... to name a few.
QuoteI am not arguing or even objecting to this, this statement to you and the others probably makes perfect sense, but I can't seem to understand what you are saying here.
Atheists do not seem to spend much time on the social sciences as they do the physical sciences, and in truth seem to almost look at it with disdain.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 09, 2019, 07:45:37 PM
I never understood the atheist obsession with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, nor the same for theists.
Religion gets plenty of things right... and perhaps gets those things more right than "atheism" does. Yes, there are fantastic philosophical and moral atheist philosophies... but how many atheists actually spend time learning them vs spending time obsessing over science, politics and other things beyond their control that, while good to know, have little to no practical effect on their life?
How many Christians study or obsess over anything, rather than letting their pastors tell them what to think? Not very many.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 09, 2019, 11:06:27 PM
How many Christians study or obsess over anything, rather than letting their pastors tell them what to think? Not very many.
Being obsessive is a mental illness, no matter what your persuasion. Idea fixe.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 09, 2019, 10:06:14 PM
What religion gets right pales when compared with the destruction it causes. That is too high a price for society to pay. I would think that human secularist organizations would be better than any theist group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism
Yeah, but atheists aren't the joining kind, unless it is the Communist party.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 09, 2019, 07:45:37 PM
I never understood the atheist obsession with throwing the baby out with the bathwater, nor the same for theists.
Religion gets plenty of things right... and perhaps gets those things more right than "atheism" does. Yes, there are fantastic philosophical and moral atheist philosophies... but how many atheists actually spend time learning them vs spending time obsessing over science, politics and other things beyond their control that, while good to know, have little to no practical effect on their life?
The things that religion gets right are generally easily stolen and integrated into a non-religious life. Most have been, to the point of people completely missing that is happening, and then claiming that it's not a good idea stolen from religion, but just "common sense", which is precisely the point. The good ideas of religion are just things that are common sense, and the rest of it is mostly bad ideas.
But asking an atheist to explain the way they set up their life through the lens of atheism is missing the point. Atheism is an irrelevant issue and utterly meaningless in the absence of oppressive religion (or, rarely, oppressive government), and people who happen to be atheist will just fill their lives according to culture, philosophy, history the same way the rest of world does. There's a reason no two religious people can agree on what their religion says. It's because they're just trying to reconcile what they truly feel with what their religion claims they should feel, and the former always takes precedence.
Atheists generally don't bother trying because they know it's nonsense, and to religious people that sounds very strange, apparently.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 09, 2019, 10:19:29 PM
Stoicism, Absurdism, Charvaka, Hedonism, Sensualism... to name a few.
oh. I would never have considered any of them fantastic. maybe quirky. Ha, but that's me. I don't adopt any "atheist" philosophies or any other for that matter. I would tend more to Sartre on his existence preceeds essence thought but as science is learning we may have pre-set determinations to a degree pushing us into behaviors that we think we choose when it may be that our genetic predisposition is simply responding to. I don't find porn to be the stimulation most others do, there is only one video in my life that I have watched more than a dozen times and that is of a women masturbating....for some reason that just twists my "genes"....get it?
Aitm --- oooh, French edginess ;-)
Plu --- Marx borrowed from Hegel, Rousseau and Voltaire. Hegel's philosophy was a secularized Christian theology (aka Scholasticism). Rousseau and Voltaire were anti-Catholic. Hegel being German, was anti-Luthers/anti-Catholic. It is very hard for any Japanese to escape the historical influence of Japanese cultural norms. The same applies to Westerners vs their cultural heritage. This is why, if one is triggered by negative reaction to one's home culture, it is like chasing your own tail.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2019, 02:35:33 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_humanism
Yeah, but atheists aren't the joining kind, unless it is the Communist party.
Yeah--but that's my point. The Communist Party is where it's at.
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 10, 2019, 09:45:35 AM
Yeah--but that's my point. The Communist Party is where it's at.
Unfortunately, because communism is anti-humanist. Some religious are also anti-humanist. See ... if you hate yourself, if you hate your parents/ancestors, if you hate your neighbors/co-workers, if you hate men, if you hate women, if you hate children ... or just humanity in general ... you must become a genocidal dictator like Hitler or Stalin. The goal isn't socialism (socialists want to be powerful and virtue signal, not help the poor), it is to use socialism as a tool for sadism.
For example, iconoclast Jews, Muslims or Byzantines ... are anti-culture, anti-human. Culture is what we do, including politics and religion. People who simply want to be left alone, are proto-Unabombers.
Quote from: Baruch on February 10, 2019, 11:31:30 AM
Unfortunately, because communism is anti-humanist. Some religious are also anti-humanist. See ... if you hate yourself, if you hate your parents/ancestors, if you hate your neighbors/co-workers, if you hate men, if you hate women, if you hate children ... or just humanity in general ... you must become a genocidal dictator like Hitler or Stalin.
Ahhh---I see. you aspire to become Hitler/Stalin. Thank you for clearing that up.
We are all baby Hitler/Stalin ... right/left hemispheres in skull.
Whether or not I have S&M tendencies is not for here ;-)
Quote from: Shiranu on February 09, 2019, 10:19:29 PM
Stoicism, Absurdism, Charvaka, Hedonism, Sensualism... to name a few.
Atheists do not seem to spend much time on the social sciences as they do the physical sciences, and in truth seem to almost look at it with disdain.
Physical sciences are high science that is around our current level of exploration. Social sciences are weak because the information giving out is not as solid or high leveled as physical science. However it is still science even though physical "Uber Nerd" scientists act very snobbish.
I'm a historian and it is a profession seen as a social science or mainly liberal art because assholes think history can't be scientific as we document and research the fuck out of everything.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 10, 2019, 03:38:02 PM
Physical sciences are high science that is around our current level of exploration. Social sciences are weak because the information giving out is not as solid or high leveled as physical science. However it is still science even though physical "Uber Nerd" scientists act very snobbish.
I'm a historian and it is a profession seen as a social science or mainly liberal art because assholes think history can't be scientific as we document and research the fuck out of everything.
I wasn't aware that people considered your field a social science. Psychology is often called a "soft science," because it mainly deals with correlation rather than causation. It does irritate the hell out of me, though, that people tend to dismiss it and just believe whatever they want to believe about the mind and human behavior. Then again, it's become a trend to replace genuine medicine with "alternative medicine," so it's not just social sciences people are dismissing.
Quote from: Draconic Aiur on February 10, 2019, 03:38:02 PM
Physical sciences are high science that is around our current level of exploration. Social sciences are weak because the information giving out is not as solid or high leveled as physical science. However it is still science even though physical "Uber Nerd" scientists act very snobbish.
I'm a historian and it is a profession seen as a social science or mainly liberal art because assholes think history can't be scientific as we document and research the fuck out of everything.
Reductionists are like women supermodels ... they are anorexic to fit into the clothes, physical science is lacking in human interest (very nerdy).
I had to be physical science oriented the first 10 years of my working life. Since then I have had to do data processing, but the arts are much more interesting, always have been. I was into art and music as a child. But I wanted to eat.
I don't consider social sciences in the same vein I do physical sciences. The latter seems to me to be more rigorous and falsifiable, whereas in the former not so much.
In social sciences, to even get reliable results you have to do stuff like double- and triple-blind tests in many fields. This isn't even necessary in physical sciences, AFAIK, because you're doing physical measurements/experiments.
I also think that in stuff like psychology, tests are hard to pin down, because we have an incomplete understanding of the human brain and brains in general, and this is reflected back in psychology research. This is different in neurology though and pharma, because it's sort of a mix of a social and physical science.
Quote from: Sal1981 on February 11, 2019, 12:23:21 PM
I don't consider social sciences in the same vein I do physical sciences. The latter seems to me to be more rigorous and falsifiable, whereas in the former not so much.
In social sciences, to even get reliable results you have to do stuff like double- and triple-blind tests in many fields. This isn't even necessary in physical sciences, AFAIK, because you're doing physical measurements/experiments.
I also think that in stuff like psychology, tests are hard to pin down, because we have an incomplete understanding of the human brain and brains in general, and this is reflected back in psychology research. This is different in neurology though and pharma, because it's sort of a mix of a social and physical science.
It seems like you're suggesting that psychological research isn't reliable or useful. Just like with any other science, researchers go through great lengths to ensure that their data is means what they think it means, is free of bias, and accurately represents the population. People are, of course, unpredictable creatures. However, psychology deals with populations rather than individuals (usually), and finds patterns. Other researchers will then take the same research question, look at it from a different angle, and see if the previous data still holds up.
As an example, let's take one subject everyone considers themselves an expert on: Corporal punishment. We have decades of research on the subject, all conclusively showing that corporal punishment not only has zero positive outcomes, but has several negative ones. Children who are spanked are more likely to misbehave, which is the exact opposite result parents are typically trying to get from that form of punishment. But do parents consult psychological experts to ask them if they should spank their kids? Nope. They follow family tradition, they read self-help books from people who don't know WTF they're talking about, and they listen to religious leaders who tell them "spare the rod, spoil the child." There's one mother on Facebook, someone I met in church years ago, who recently posted that she spanked her daughter several times in one day, and the girl was still misbehaving. It never occurred to her to seek a different strategy. Honestly, any parents who still spank their kids in the year 2019, where this kind of information is easy to find on the internet, should be ashamed of themselves.
Another example is mental illness. Just...god damn. Every time there's a mass shooting, you see politicians on TV talking about mental illness, and how it's obviously the root cause of the problem. Do they ever televise an actual expert on mental illness, to ask them what they have to say? Nope. They're not interested in that. They just want to use the mentally ill as a scapegoat so they can avoid legitimate debate on gun control.
Tests on live humans is expensive and difficult. Experiments on whole societies are called ... totalitarianism.
Quote from: Blackleaf on February 11, 2019, 01:01:13 PMIt seems like you're suggesting that psychological research isn't reliable or useful.
That's not usually what people are suggesting in delineating hard and soft sciences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science) and I strongly doubt Sal's claiming that.
The general (and possibly incorrect) perception is that "soft sciences" (psychology, sociology, political science, etc) exhibit less scientific rigor, less testable, less quantifiable, less able to perform controlled experiments, etc. It's not usually meant as a complete dismissal of soft sciences, but a perception that hard sciences have a higher degree of testability, objectivity, and consensus than soft sciences.
For example, compare the consensus on whether or not global warming is real to whether spanking is harmful to a child's development or whether or not a nuclear family is an ideal family unit. In social sciences, you're more likely to run into "Well, in ___ school of thought..." and "according to interviews and case studies..." Much less certain, more hotly disputed answers. Hence, this perception.