Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 11:16am PT
|
Healyje: But you're right, I don't have any questions or doubts about the scientific method whatsoever; but that's not dogma, just a simple recognition and acknowledgement we don't have a better way of understanding the [material] world and universe in which we live.
“Tu Quoque.”
Religion and myth are wrong and even childish when it can be shown that their ideologies or narratives have holes or weaknesses. And how do we know about those holes and weaknesses? We know because we can make observations of apparent hypocrisies. What people of religion say they don’t do. In practice, the idealism of religion and myth just does not exist. It is only (perhaps) the founders who might have been pure. Look at all of the pain and suffering that has come out of religion and myth.
But not science. Science is a purely objective process with a set of procedures, values, beliefs, and norms that finds truth most of the time (it is believed). An orientation to falsification (rather than truth), abstract modeling of reality, parsimony, instrumental provisionality, mathematical and statistical tests for validity and verification, theory-laden facts that are defined into existence methodologically, etc. are “small problems” that naturally result from limitations of language, tractability, and incommensurabilities. “Close enough” is close enough. What people actually do in science can be overlooked because idealistically science is pure and objective. What science produces is good for everyone.
If science provides the best way of understanding the (material) world and universe we live in, then I guess that implies that we should be materialists.
It’s a little hypocritical when a critic can not see his or her own view and how much he or she is like the very people he or she criticizes.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 01:03pm PT
|
Where is the like button? It's not healthy to criticize oneself too much or we run the risk of being stuck without the motivation to get out of bed in the morning, the same for all of us. Doesn't stop us from believing that we're right though, and I'm starting to think that it probably shouldn't.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 01:14pm PT
|
Religion and myth are wrong and even childish...
Yep, you could have stopped right there with regard to systems for understanding the material world and universe.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 01:57pm PT
|
Religion and myth are wrong and even childish...
Yep, you could have stopped right there with regard to systems for understanding the material world and universe.
Very sad...
This is like saying Aesop's fables are BS because animals don't talk. The Chasm between science and an understanding of theology grows ever wider.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 02:08pm PT
|
Aesops fables are great - so long as you're not trying to understand the evolution of the Platypus' reproductive system; then they're worthless.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 02:10pm PT
|
"The Chasm between science and an understanding of theology grows ever wider."
That's because theology as practiced traditionally is dead.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 02:13pm PT
|
Aesops fables are great - so long as you're not trying to understand the evolution of the Platypus' reproductive system; then they're worthless.
Yes, and what's more important to the quality of your life, knowledge of virtue or knowledge of the reproductive system of a Platypus? I'd say they share an equal importance of sorts.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 02:34pm PT
|
...knowledge of virtue...
I didn't say a word about virtue and neither does science.
That said, I don't for a moment believe religion is the only or even best way to teach virtue, particularly so on balance given the raft of unvirtuous baggage that comes with it.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 02:59pm PT
|
I didn't say a word about virtue and neither does science.
That said, I don't for a moment believe religion is the only or even best way to teach virtue, particularly so on balance given the raft of unvirtuous baggage that comes with it.
Science can say nothing about the nature of morality or virtue except peripherally as products of evolution. And that's the point. Morality, religion and virtue fall under the purview of the humanities and philosophy which is the child of religious and mythological practice.
"Unvirtuous baggage" is the natural possession of the human race whether it claims science, religion or philosophy as its authority. That baggage would likely have been far more cumbersome without the moral expectations of mythological practice.
Be it atheist or theist or something in between the nature of man is remarkably violent and self serving, religion and mythology are most often mediations to that violent nature... even the old testament offers a new order in which vengeance is taken from humanity and placed in the hands of God.
The problem isn't the nature of religion; its the nature of man's inhumanity to man. Discrediting religion is no cure for our own inherent violence.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 03:35pm PT
|
The problem isn't the nature of religion; its the nature of man's inhumanity to man. Discrediting religion is no cure for our own inherent violence.
well said Paul
What is the science of for investigating greed, anger and ignorance and how that relates to world peace or world suffering? What is the science for how to have a healthy peaceful relationship with those you personally relate to? Is it biology, physics, chemistry and how would that work and who would fund it?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 03:54pm PT
|
You guys seem unable to separate science from the culture it operates within.
Religion has many of those same issues ala human nature. However, the difference between the two is science casts no judgment on human behavior whereas most religions have explicit doctrine relative to it. So right off the top I personally wholly discount any religion or theology which assumes humans are in anyway less than 'perfect' at birth. Next go any religion which believes its god is the only true god. Next go religions intolerant of other religions. Last go any which declare normal human behavior a 'sin', abhorrent, evil or forbidden.
After that there's just not many standing...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 03:55pm PT
|
The real truth is you atheists are the ones inventing God all the time.
Since you have absolutely zero clue what and who God is you invent the idea in your head then project the stupid idea.
You have proven you have no clue and are mental speculator guessers stabbing blind in the dark.
God is never ever invented nor can it ever be done ever nor has it ever been done period.
Only ignorant mental speculators say sh!t they know nothing about every time they post in this thread .......
|
|
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 04:01pm PT
|
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 04:11pm PT
|
Um... sociology?
Great topic.
How "scientific" is sociology? At what point does it lose its observational neutrality and become political agenda? How does it define terms such as good and evil and are those absolute definitions?
What is the definition of the social good? How can sociology ever escape notions of relativism?
Some really difficult and fascinating questions.
Can scientific method through social observation provide us moral certitude?
I'm not sure in the same way that I can't imagine/ I'm not sure that increased complexity and an algorithm can achieve artificial consciousness.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 04:36pm PT
|
"Great topic.
How "scientific" is sociology? At what point does it lose its observational neutrality and become political agenda? How does it define terms such as good and evil and are those absolute definitions?
What is the definition of the social good? How can sociology ever escape notions of relativism?
Some really difficult and fascinating questions."
Hey, sounds like a brand new framework of thinking is needed.
Maybe one will emerge now that we've entered a brand new era and our thinking isn't so retro anymore.
Let's keep our fingers crossed! :)
PS
(1) I mean Scientology aside. (Not exactly science-based, lol)
(2) Maybe this ISIS Alahaha bruhaha will spur its innovation even more quickly.
.....
science v religion...
"The caliph is required to implement Sharia. Any deviation will compel those who have pledged allegiance to inform the caliph in private of his error and, in extreme cases, to excommunicate and replace him if he persists. (“I have been plagued with this great matter, plagued with this responsibility, and it is a heavy responsibility,” Baghdadi said in his sermon.) In return, the caliph commands obedience—and those who persist in supporting non-Muslim governments, after being duly warned and educated about their sin, are considered apostates."
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
No thanks, it's the modern age, I'll go with science.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 04:41pm PT
|
How "scientific" is sociology?
Harshest criticism of the 'soft' sciences I've read was from Robert Pirsig ('Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values') in his follow-on book 'Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals' written seventeen years later. And while it may be difficult for humans to be truly objective when studying other humans, such sciences still provide plenty of value from my perspective.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 05:03pm PT
|
Humanities are nice. I don't need to invent a god to author them, nor us, however.
however, you were born and live in america, "..for which it stands, one nation under God." And everyone here today is living in this environment which is dictated by the 10 commandments. Wether you oblige by them are not, is your freedom of choice. Matter of fact just about everyone in the entire world is living in this environment, or atleast they've heard about it.
Everything in ur 'social science' post has been talked over for thousands of years. Nothing new there. The bible dealt with them then, just as it does now.
the bible is timeless
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 05:17pm PT
|
And while it may be difficult for humans to be truly objective when studying other humans, such sciences still provide plenty of value from my perspective.
those books were surely written with the bible in mind.
truly the best objective studying of humans today,IMO. Is going on in China. Try googling CCTV. whatch that for a week and i'll bet you a cheeseburger you won't stop.
BTW, China has the fastest growing christian population in the world right now. More than Russia even
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2015 - 05:23pm PT
|
Hey Blu,
how do atoms of hydrogen find atoms of oxygen to make water? and how do they do it in just the right proportion? you know, H2O, isn't it?
I'm thinking the holy spirit.
how about you?
on the other hand, maybe the heavenly host might somehow be involved?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!