Author Topic: Science vs religion  (Read 1514 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #45 on: December 15, 2020, 06:49:39 PM »
Science cannot accommodate religion because of science's default to metaphysical naturalism, which denies any sort of supernaturalism. For the same reason religion cannot accommodate science, so never the twain shall meet.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy, same as any other woo.  You can't win any argument about philosophy, because the philosophy underlies the means of argumentation.  Only when people share enough of the same philosophy can they productively argue, because they already agree about most things.  Like two priests arguing about what the Pope meant.

The Catholic Church is fine with modern science.  They don't acknowledge metaphysical naturalism.  They prematurely latched onto Aristotelianism ... because they thought in 1300 that it was modern science, which at the time, it was.  Inability to change with the times, comes about because of being a vast bureaucracy ... similar to the Soviet Union.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2020, 06:51:50 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline drunkenshoe

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #46 on: December 16, 2020, 05:48:57 AM »
I use the word 'stupid' as defined by me.  To me, stupid means unable to learn.  Ignorant means without that particular set of facts, but willing to learn them when possible.  So, the religious are both ignorant (they are unaware of some information) and stupid, because even if aware of certain facts, they won't accept those facts and simply rely on their beliefs/faith.  The religious leaders are not stupid, they are much like trump in that they know what they are doing and why--fleecing the flock.

Yeah, stupid means unable to learn. But he doesn't know that. The thing is, stupidity is some sort of a mental handicap. When we genuinely think someone is stupid, we think they are not capable to understand what is going in their environment and so can't respond back accordingly. Ignorant is just lack of education and/or knowledge, information. Not being incapable of processing the simplest kind of information or knowledge.

However, willingness to be ignorant of something -in this case, willingness to refuse enlightenment- in order to maintain a situation, a position is not a sign of stupidity but a sign of having an agenda to your benefit/profit which is the opposite of stupidity. People choose to follow the easiest path to get the best rewards possible in life. Consciously or unconsciously, they make choices according to that circumstances.

In my opinion, most religious people are perfectly aware what is going on and they make a choice. And it is a simple choice considering we live in the 21st century and we don't need to rely on our wits to survive. I'm not just talking about organised religions either. 

Just to make my position clear on this. I find it dangerous for secular world to see them as stupid, I think it is this part you misunderstand. It's dangerous to look down on a highly adaptive organic phenomena that is built on professional play of natural human weaknesses. Because first, it is a great underestimation and underevalutaion of their position and secondly, this is the collective drive and psychology that provide them most of the power they have. Because the stupid is not responsible for his actions. He is stupid. That makes them untouchable in a way. It's putting this people at some white place in a black and white world; creates a toxic delusion of religion as a safe, uncomplicated, familiar, clean world in contrast to the real one. Creates a perception of a difficult, painful life out of religion. It paints the real world almost 'unnatural', an inhabitable place for humans.

When we look at the anti-vaccine people we say 'OK, moron. Go die and say hi to Darwin, who cares'. Because clearly these poeple are stupid? Yeah but most of them are not even religious. And there is a considerable amount of educated, secular people among them. Exactly like the Qanon group.

This has been bugging me for a long time. Since the last years of my twenties. I grew up in an anti-religous home and when I left that sheltered zone, I was surprised at the real world and real people. It was the university here, in that era. You have coincided people you normally wouldn't in your zone. (Not to mention the observations you can have on hundreds of students from every corner of the country -practically different dimension compared ot each other when you are full time RA. I sometimes think that was the real, unconsious reason why I wanted to do it, not for the field.)

Anyway, I have befriended people from very different backgrounds, far lower or higher than my chance has given me. I've watched some of them change dramatically in the last two decades.

In a nutshell, I didn't know religous people could live secular lives and make conscious choices to support that world vision. I didn't know how highly educated, high class secular people could make choices for themselves to support religous bigotry. I've known people for more than 20 years who came from the worst islamic ghettos and gone on to the extreme measures to defend the opposite world/lives while themselves stayed religious. I have seen quite a few friends shift from a secular sensible views to almost nazi like fascism against religous people. Eventually, I have moved from my starting point of 'stupidity' or even ignorance under certain circumstances. Because the world and the people in it are far more complicated than the 'the stupid vs the intelligent' point of view can include. Esp. when we all agree on that religion largely stands on brainwashing from childhood.

I don't have any answers. But on a funny note, I sometimes think one of the main reasons for the general difference in my opinions compared to the forum is the space between people you have in your country. We have to live on top of each other -not really, compared to yours- while you live far away from each other, as indiviudals, families or communities in big spaces, surrounded by huge spaces. That makes most of you more alienated to each other than we are to each other.

But on the other hand, we have speicfically visible differences and traits between the religous and the secular, while it would be far more difficult to observe these differences in the States.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 06:39:40 AM by drunkenshoe »
"I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides." Havelock Vetinari

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2020, 10:23:34 AM »
Thank goodness we have giant headed aliens to lead humanity, since all humans are stupid monkeys ;-)  Nothing more irritating than a stupid monkey claiming they are a giant headed alien, when a simple look at them will show how simian they are.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 10:42:15 AM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Baruch

Re: Science vs religion
« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2020, 08:01:28 PM »
Science isn't done by disembodied brains in jars connected to supercomputers ... it is more like a medieval theology department than at first glance ...

“Every scientist is also influenced in how they see the world by who happens to be their teachers and students. So paradigms are the intellectual property of social groups whose rules and conventions are to be found, not just in their textbooks and theories, but also in the nature of funding bodies, research and educational institutions, the review boards for learned journals and so on.” - James Ladyman “Understanding Philosophy of Science”

Listed to a podcast recently with a physicist recounting his experience with his PhD committee circa 1980.  He simply wasn't interested in his assigned problem.  His PhD committee were control freaks who insisted that his personal preferences were irrelevant, only what the department wanted was relevant, and if he didn't like it, he could drop out of the PhD program.  He sought advice from a senior scientist at another university.  This advisor said, grit your teeth and finish your thesis, and I will hire you as a post-doc.  This was hard advice.  He finished his PhD thesis, and got passed by his PhD committee, but they wanted a few more typos corrected before he submitted the thesis to the university library for permanent storage.

He hated his thesis, never corrected the manuscript, never submitted that to the university library.  He took the post-doc position and lived with the nightmare that someone might find out he had his PhD, but never completed his thesis.  Ten years later the librarian from his old university called up, asking for a copy of his final manuscript, for binding with the others from that year.  He turned white, and BSed his way thru the crisis.  He shouted angrily at the librarian saying ... "How dare you lose your copy of my final thesis manuscript!".  This put the librarian off, and she spent time looking again for it.  Later she called back telling him they found it, and sorry to have bothered him.  How she bound a non-existent copy of a non-existent final manuscript is unknown ;-)
« Last Edit: December 16, 2020, 08:03:56 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.