As A Nation, We're Screwed.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Jolly said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Doctor-Phibes said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Jolly said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Jolly said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

Folks, I appeal to the group at large...

Do you find -in general - that much of what the poll found is true?

I think it's a massive spectrum that aggregate data points oversimplify.

I agree it's a big spectrum, but I think the generalities are reflected in other ways...Look at church attendence. Look at Military recruiting shortfalls. Look at how benevolent and civic organization numbers have dropped.

Aren't those reflections of this trend?

Here's my view on religion, which is ultimate Moonbat bait and probably you'd want to excommunicate me for it, too:

It's not going anywhere.

Okay sure, so younger people don't go to church as much. But they have beliefs. They act on those beliefs, and they place moral judgements of "that's bad" and " this is good" based on those beliefs. It's just that their religion doesn't include Sunday sermons.

If you're a diehard atheist who views organized religion as oppressive, superstitious brainwashing, then you worship at the altar of reason and rationality. Atheists would hate to describe it that way, but in terms of motive action, there's no relevant difference whatsoever.

And you can't tell me liberal fanatics don't have religious zeal.

I don't think we're any less religious than we ever were—we're just worshipping different stuff. Maybe it's the wrong kind of stuff, but we're still making sacrifices to deities and letting our beliefs define our morality for us. That's a different kind of problem than if we weren't actually religious. It's "pick your deity." You don't get to not have one, sorry.

A belief system isn't the same thing as religion.

I see both sides. Aqua makes a very good point - people are worshipping a god, just what god is it?

I think a corollary to the insane shit I'm proposing is that people would be a hell of a lot better off if they'd be more deliberate about which religion they chose to follow. I don't think letting people falsely believe they get to not choose one is doing anyone any favors.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Jolly said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

I think one fundamental disconnect is that science is based on observation, and the belief that scientific truth must be observable. There are no scientific truths that are not subject to change, if observations change.

Sure, that can be part of their belief system. Why not?

I'll try to be more clear about what I mean. When you point to the average medieval European peasant and say, "he was religious," how does this look practically, when analyzing the actions he might take on an average day? What motivated him to do that?

Compare that to what a scientist does on an average day and attach motivations to those actions. There's belief, judgement on himself and others based on his beliefs, sacrifices made, work done in service to being a good Christian scientist, "saints" to look up to (Tesla maybe, if that's your thing), the less religious to look down on, etc.

They're still acting it out. It's just that the details might not have anything to do with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

Not sure I've ever seen a cathedral with stained glass windows of the Stations of the Microscope...

No, but I'm sure you've been to a shitload of gatherings of the faithful symposia or conferences in which bishops thought leaders and experts spoke behind an altar a podium to share the good news update others on the newest techniques and discoveries.

And like a Methodist visiting his buddy's Baptist church, you can go in there, learn a few things you think are helpful and still think Christian truths trump what you heard at the conference.

I mean come on, it's the same thing.

[Horace]

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

I think one fundamental disconnect is that science is based on observation, and the belief that scientific truth must be observable. There are no scientific truths that are not subject to change, if observations change.

Sure, that can be part of their belief system. Why not?

I'll try to be more clear about what I mean. When you point to the average medieval European peasant and say, "he was religious," how does this look practically, when analyzing the actions he might take on an average day? What motivated him to do that?

Compare that to what a scientist does on an average day and attach motivations to those actions. There's belief, judgement on himself and others based on his beliefs, sacrifices made, work done in service to being a good Christian scientist, "saints" to look up to (Tesla maybe, if that's your thing), the less religious to look down on, etc.

They're still acting it out. It's just that the details might not have anything to do with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

The analogy seems to break down when you get to the reasons for belief. Religious belief is based on faith which can not be disproven by any conceivable observation, while scientific belief is based on observation and reason, and can be disproven.

The fact that science can motivate people to act, to gather, to listen, to believe, doesn't mean it's a religion.

[Horace]

"I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong, and I'm willing to concede, if and when observation proves me wrong", is fundamentally what would separate science from religion, to my mind. A scientist, or a self-described rational human being, accepts that piece of humility concerning their beliefs, while a religious person would not accept it.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

"I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong, and I'm willing to concede, if and when observation proves me wrong", is fundamentally what would separate science from religion, to my mind. A scientist, or a self-described rational human being, accepts that piece of humility concerning their beliefs, while a religious person would not accept it.

I don't think science and religion are the same at all, but I'm also not that characterisation of the religious is necessarily what distinguishes them. Plenty of religious people have doubt, and may change their beliefs over time based on their life experience. Some scientists will also cling to a belief despite building evidence to the contrary - it's a very human reaction. Some of Einstein's arguments against quantum theory invoked a creator rather than any reasoned thought the process - 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'. Now, this phrase might have been misunderstood, he almost certainly wasn't talking about a literal God, but I think he was basing his rejection of quantum mechanics at least partly on an instinctive dislike of the ideas it raised. He had a belief in the 'order' of nature, the old science, if you like.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

"I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong, and I'm willing to concede, if and when observation proves me wrong", is fundamentally what would separate science from religion, to my mind. A scientist, or a self-described rational human being, accepts that piece of humility concerning their beliefs, while a religious person would not accept it.

I don't think science and religion are the same at all, but I'm also not that characterisation of the religious is necessarily what distinguishes them. Plenty of religious people have doubt, and may change their beliefs over time based on their life experience. Some scientists will also cling to a belief despite building evidence to the contrary - it's a very human reaction. Some of Einstein's arguments against quantum theory invoked a creator rather than any reasoned thought the process - 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'. Now, this phrase might have been misunderstood, he almost certainly wasn't talking about a literal God, but I think he was basing his rejection of quantum mechanics at least partly on an instinctive dislike of the ideas it raised. He had a belief in the 'order' of nature, the old science, if you like.

The validity of the definition of a category does not depend on the humans self-identifying as that category, strictly adhering to the definition.

Regarding the Einstein quote, it's really a belief in logic rather than randomness underlying the universe. The study of quantum mechanics would be the pursuit of whatever logic is behind things that look like randomness to our current powers of observation.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

Regarding the Einstein quote, it's really a belief in logic rather than randomness underlying the universe.

Exactly. It's a belief. Not so much in logic, but in order. He didn't like the idea of chaos, which has since been shown to be more important than anybody would have imagined back then.

[Horace]

@Doctor-Phibes said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

Regarding the Einstein quote, it's really a belief in logic rather than randomness underlying the universe.

Exactly. It's a belief. Not so much in logic, but in order. He didn't like the idea of chaos, which has since been shown to be more important than anybody would have imagined back then.

I don't think anybody believes that Einstein would be doggedly adhering to anything that has been shown to be false. Nor do I think "God doesn't play dice with the universe" has been proven false, if taken in the spirit in which it was said.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

I think one fundamental disconnect is that science is based on observation, and the belief that scientific truth must be observable. There are no scientific truths that are not subject to change, if observations change.

Sure, that can be part of their belief system. Why not?

I'll try to be more clear about what I mean. When you point to the average medieval European peasant and say, "he was religious," how does this look practically, when analyzing the actions he might take on an average day? What motivated him to do that?

Compare that to what a scientist does on an average day and attach motivations to those actions. There's belief, judgement on himself and others based on his beliefs, sacrifices made, work done in service to being a good Christian scientist, "saints" to look up to (Tesla maybe, if that's your thing), the less religious to look down on, etc.

They're still acting it out. It's just that the details might not have anything to do with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

The analogy seems to break down when you get to the reasons for belief. Religious belief is based on faith which can not be disproven by any conceivable observation, while scientific belief is based on observation and reason, and can be disproven.

I disagree. Scientific reasoning is very often applied to areas and subjects well beyond its scope, and the result is a religious faith argument. This happens regularly here, for example.

The fact that science can motivate people to act, to gather, to listen, to believe, doesn't mean it's a religion.

No, but it does create moral value judgments, motivate people to act on what they perceive as virtues, and make sacrifices accordingly.

[Aqua Letifer]

DUPE

[Aqua Letifer]

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Doctor-Phibes said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

Some scientists will also cling to a belief despite building evidence to the contrary - it's a very human reaction.

That's kind of what I'm trying to say. Religious practices are inescapably human. We've been playing at it for far too long to think we can just throw it away with enlightened thinking.

Some of Einstein's arguments against quantum theory invoked a creator rather than any reasoned thought the process - 'God doesn't play dice with the universe'. Now, this phrase might have been misunderstood, he almost certainly wasn't talking about a literal God, but I think he was basing his rejection of quantum mechanics at least partly on an instinctive dislike of the ideas it raised. He had a belief in the 'order' of nature, the old science, if you like.

I'm not talking about what people say they believe, I'm talking about comparing what they do.

In terms of the morals created around the idea, and the actions and judgements made based on those morals, what's the difference?

[Horace]

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

I think one fundamental disconnect is that science is based on observation, and the belief that scientific truth must be observable. There are no scientific truths that are not subject to change, if observations change.

Sure, that can be part of their belief system. Why not?

I'll try to be more clear about what I mean. When you point to the average medieval European peasant and say, "he was religious," how does this look practically, when analyzing the actions he might take on an average day? What motivated him to do that?

Compare that to what a scientist does on an average day and attach motivations to those actions. There's belief, judgement on himself and others based on his beliefs, sacrifices made, work done in service to being a good Christian scientist, "saints" to look up to (Tesla maybe, if that's your thing), the less religious to look down on, etc.

They're still acting it out. It's just that the details might not have anything to do with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

The analogy seems to break down when you get to the reasons for belief. Religious belief is based on faith which can not be disproven by any conceivable observation, while scientific belief is based on observation and reason, and can be disproven.

I disagree. Scientific reasoning is very often applied to areas and subjects well beyond its scope, and the result is a religious faith argument. This happens regularly here, for example.

That's just a human failing to live up to ideals. I won't argue if your point is that people who claim to be rigorously scientific or rational in their conclusions, are often anything but. That doesn't mean that the claim to scientific reasoning is meaningless.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

I think one fundamental disconnect is that science is based on observation, and the belief that scientific truth must be observable. There are no scientific truths that are not subject to change, if observations change.

Sure, that can be part of their belief system. Why not?

I'll try to be more clear about what I mean. When you point to the average medieval European peasant and say, "he was religious," how does this look practically, when analyzing the actions he might take on an average day? What motivated him to do that?

Compare that to what a scientist does on an average day and attach motivations to those actions. There's belief, judgement on himself and others based on his beliefs, sacrifices made, work done in service to being a good Christian scientist, "saints" to look up to (Tesla maybe, if that's your thing), the less religious to look down on, etc.

They're still acting it out. It's just that the details might not have anything to do with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

The analogy seems to break down when you get to the reasons for belief. Religious belief is based on faith which can not be disproven by any conceivable observation, while scientific belief is based on observation and reason, and can be disproven.

I disagree. Scientific reasoning is very often applied to areas and subjects well beyond its scope, and the result is a religious faith argument. This happens regularly here, for example.

That's just a human failing to live up to ideals. I won't argue if your point is that people who claim to be rigorously scientific or rational in their conclusions, are often anything but. That doesn't mean that the claim to scientific reasoning is meaningless.

No, I mean they apply scientific reasoning to areas in which it makes no sense to do so. They think it applies to everything, and that in their view, there is indeed an unattainable perfect ideal to strive for. Which is part of why I'd consider it religion-as-practice.

[Horace]

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

I think one fundamental disconnect is that science is based on observation, and the belief that scientific truth must be observable. There are no scientific truths that are not subject to change, if observations change.

Sure, that can be part of their belief system. Why not?

I'll try to be more clear about what I mean. When you point to the average medieval European peasant and say, "he was religious," how does this look practically, when analyzing the actions he might take on an average day? What motivated him to do that?

Compare that to what a scientist does on an average day and attach motivations to those actions. There's belief, judgement on himself and others based on his beliefs, sacrifices made, work done in service to being a good Christian scientist, "saints" to look up to (Tesla maybe, if that's your thing), the less religious to look down on, etc.

They're still acting it out. It's just that the details might not have anything to do with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

The analogy seems to break down when you get to the reasons for belief. Religious belief is based on faith which can not be disproven by any conceivable observation, while scientific belief is based on observation and reason, and can be disproven.

I disagree. Scientific reasoning is very often applied to areas and subjects well beyond its scope, and the result is a religious faith argument. This happens regularly here, for example.

That's just a human failing to live up to ideals. I won't argue if your point is that people who claim to be rigorously scientific or rational in their conclusions, are often anything but. That doesn't mean that the claim to scientific reasoning is meaningless.

No, I mean they apply scientific reasoning to areas in which it makes no sense to do so. They think it applies to everything, and that in their view, there is indeed an unattainable perfect ideal to strive for. Which is part of why I'd consider it religion-as-practice.

If a claim is objectively observable as true or false, then it's subject to scientific inquiry. If a claim is not objectively true or false via observation, then it's not subject to science.

It shouldn't be possible to destroy useful categories and definitions, by going around claiming a thing adheres to that definition, when it actually doesn't. That gives way too much power to people who use words and concepts incorrectly.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

@Horace said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

I think one fundamental disconnect is that science is based on observation, and the belief that scientific truth must be observable. There are no scientific truths that are not subject to change, if observations change.

Sure, that can be part of their belief system. Why not?

I'll try to be more clear about what I mean. When you point to the average medieval European peasant and say, "he was religious," how does this look practically, when analyzing the actions he might take on an average day? What motivated him to do that?

Compare that to what a scientist does on an average day and attach motivations to those actions. There's belief, judgement on himself and others based on his beliefs, sacrifices made, work done in service to being a good Christian scientist, "saints" to look up to (Tesla maybe, if that's your thing), the less religious to look down on, etc.

They're still acting it out. It's just that the details might not have anything to do with Christianity, Judaism, etc.

The analogy seems to break down when you get to the reasons for belief. Religious belief is based on faith which can not be disproven by any conceivable observation, while scientific belief is based on observation and reason, and can be disproven.

I disagree. Scientific reasoning is very often applied to areas and subjects well beyond its scope, and the result is a religious faith argument. This happens regularly here, for example.

That's just a human failing to live up to ideals. I won't argue if your point is that people who claim to be rigorously scientific or rational in their conclusions, are often anything but. That doesn't mean that the claim to scientific reasoning is meaningless.

No, I mean they apply scientific reasoning to areas in which it makes no sense to do so. They think it applies to everything, and that in their view, there is indeed an unattainable perfect ideal to strive for. Which is part of why I'd consider it religion-as-practice.

If a claim is objectively observable as true or false, then it's subject to scientific inquiry. If a claim is not objectively true or false via observation, then it's not subject to science.

Sure, and some folks draw the line there. In which case my mental model does break down a bit. (I'd say not completely, though, because I don't see it as an all or nothing thing. I do think there's a kind of "religious belief" spectrum or whatever you'd like to call it. Some people care about the environment, and some people are religious about it. That latter group very often makes the news but there are quite a few in the middle.)

But not everyone makes that distinction, either. All you have to do is peruse the psychology literature to find very fuzzy examples of "objectively observable as true or false," and they and their colleagues are still part of the medical science wing of their universities.

It shouldn't be possible to destroy useful categories and definitions, by going around claiming a thing adheres to that definition, when it actually doesn't. That gives way too much power to people who use words and concepts incorrectly.

I agree, which is why I tried to be very deliberate about explaining what I was claiming.

It's a massive uphill battle, though, because no one who's scientifically minded wants to entertain the possibility that what they're doing is "religious." It should be a simple matter of looking at how religion can be defined by motive action, and then comparing thoughts and actions of traditionally religious people to those like some scientists who consider themselves not to be, and see if there are similarities. But the very idea is inflammatory to a scientist due to his value systems, worldview and beliefs about what science is. (Which, again, is exactly what Christian fundamentalists do when you try to talk geological records with them, so what's the difference? Outright rejection of ideas considered blasphemous is the realm of religion, not science.)

I think what I'm saying is true enough in terms of what we act out in our lives, but no, not in terms of our opinions about an old man in the clouds who knows everything and judges us. But yeah it's just a hunch, based on personal observations. Quite obviously I haven't tested any of this formally.

[Jolly]

So how does the theory fit a religious scientist?

[Doctor Phibes]

@Jolly said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

So how does the theory fit a religious scientist?

That probably depends on the specifics of the religion and also the branch of science. You're probably not going to find a Jehovah's Witness running a blood bank.

The religious scientists I know tend to separate the two. I had a really smart friend who was a fairly devout Muslim, and who believed in the creationist teachings, but also took a number of classes in theoretical astronomy. He wouldn't accept evolutionary theory, but he had no problem at all discussing the Big Bang in intricate detail.

Somebody whose books I ran into as a student was John Polkinghorne, who was a theoretical physicist and Anglican Priest. He said the two approaches gave him binocular vision, and his book on Quantum Mechanics that I read was really interesting. It was mostly physics, but he did ask the question about whether God could be considered to be an ever present observer with regard to the Uncertainty Principal.

[Aqua Letifer]

@Jolly said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

So how does the theory fit a religious scientist?

Polytheism's a thing. You can even have preferences or tiers. All-or-nothing is a relatively new idea.

And then there are others who view science only as a day job. I should mention that my crazy theory doesn't mean I think all scientists worship Reason. Just that some absolutely act that out.

[Doctor Phibes]

@Aqua-Letifer said in As A Nation, We're Screwed.:

And then there are others who view science only as a day job.

The same can be said of religion.

[Jolly]

Lad could eat saw briars through a picket fence.

Prosperity Gospel is not Biblical.