User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 23

  1. #11
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Why are scientists concerned with trying to disprove religions?

  2. #12
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Why are scientists concerned with trying to disprove religions?
    I don't think many are. Definitely not directly. Many scientists are religious. Some of the greatest ones. Not just in the past, but in the present too. Philosophers can often be antagonistic, but few of them are scientists, and few are even using scientific principles to make their arguments. They promote Rationalism.. which isn't quite the same thing. Science isn't trying to be a sophisticated worldview like that.

  3. #13
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    Philosophers can often be antagonistic
    Especially those of the armchair variety.

  4. #14
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Yeah, I mean, this seems relatively uncontroversial.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  5. #15
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    I think it stands to reason that since even secular establishments contain religious elements, establishments ought to come clean about their inherently religious nature if they're to find common ground with religions of different beliefs. On the flipside, it also stands to reason that religious establishments ought to be clear about the distinction between their political motivations and their spiritual motivations. Seems like a lot of hostility would be diffused if we looked past face-value impressions to recognize universal trends in human beings, one of which is that humans are predisposed to a religious nature.

  6. #16
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Yeah, I mean, this seems relatively uncontroversial.
    The meaning of it might be a bit controversial since it does not prescribe an actual conclusion, it only concludes with a vague and abstract ideal:

    So why does it matter that we have moved past the -isms and into an era of greater religiosity? In an age where religious and sacred causes are resurgent, there is urgent need for scientific effort to understand them.
    This does not state what this endeavor actually entails. 'Scientific effort to understand' could mean a lot of things - for example criminal psychology makes a scientific effort to understand criminals, but this doesn't mean that criminality is considered valid or appropriate.

    Now that humankind has acquired through science the power to destroy itself with nuclear weapons, we cannot afford to let science ignore religion and the sacred, or let scientists simply try to reason them away.
    This again is vague and does not explicitly state what this entails. By all means study these things, but 'not ignoring' does not equate to 'accepting' or even to 'understanding'

    Policymakers should leverage scientific understanding of what makes religion so potent a force for both cooperation and conflict, to help increase the one and lessen the other.
    What are they talking about here? Psychology? Anthropology? Neurology? I don't think we have to understand why religion is a 'potent force' to recognize what a religion expects or demands for cooperation, especially if all they are going to do is pick it apart and say something like "hundreds of years of tradition and social pressures result in blah blah reactions to stimuli in the brain" and then go 'well in that case we shouldn't be jerks to the religious people, because they can't help it after all.'

  7. #17
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    The only slightly controversial thing I see is the burden here is on science to understand. Not every scientist is a hostile opponent like Dawkins, but the objective almost assumes as if it is. Scientists don't need to guilt themselves into thinking they're not being understanding or respectful enough.

  8. #18
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    The only slightly controversial thing I see is the burden here is on science to understand. Not every scientist is a hostile opponent like Dawkins, but the objective almost assumes as if it is. Scientists don't need to guilt themselves into thinking they're not being understanding or respectful enough.
    Well yeah, but does it really take being scientific to grasp the idea that being nicer to people will get you further? Did it really take doing interviews for them to conclude that sincerity and respect generates more flexibility?

    As much as I love science I some times worry about lack of touch with things that should be rather plain, like the above.

  9. #19
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    As much as I love science I some times worry about lack of touch with things that should be rather plain, like the above.
    lol, none of that is even plain to me? Being nice generates more flexibility? Really? Not to say I can't be nice, but often if I am, I'm screwed. And I'm sure some scientists know this too.

  10. #20
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    lol, none of that is even plain to me? Being nice generates more flexibility? Really?
    Well apparently it does. It says so right in the article. :P

    Another thing that apparently isn't plain to them is that some of this mode of thinking might be taken as patronizing:
    Fortunately, the last few years show progress in scientific studies of religion and the sacred, though headwinds remain strong. Across history and cultures, religion has often knit communities together under the rule of sentient, but immaterial deities -- that is, spiritual beings whose description is logically contradictory and empirically unfalsifiable. Cross-cultural studies pioneered by anthropologist Pascal Boyer show that these miraculous features -- talking bushes, horses that leap into the sky -- make lasting impressions on people and thereby increase the likelihood that they will be passed down to the next generation. Implausibility also facilitates cultural transmission in a more subtle manner -- fostering adaptability of religious beliefs by opening the door to multiple interpretations (as with metaphors or weekly sermons).

    And the greater the investment in outlandishness, the better. This is because adherence to apparently absurd beliefs means incurring costs -- surviving without electricity, for example, if you are Amish -- which help identify members who are committed to the survival of a group and cannot be lured away. The ease of identifying true believers, in turn, builds trust and galvanizes group solidarity for common defense.
    It's like "we figured out something about how these people work, therefore we understand them!" Wrong!

    When they dissect it into psychological and sociological weights and measures in such a way, they end up killing and throwing out the actual 'religion' part of it. The same things could be said for already defunct religions, faeries, and Santa Claus, but I know from experience that if you actually make this comparison then certain religious people are going to look at you funny, if not outright object. It's akin to saying "your belief is still absurd and irrational but I understand why you have it now."

Similar Threads

  1. The Banned and The Damned
    By Haight in forum Official Decrees
    Replies: 331
    Last Post: 11-30-2017, 07:12 PM
  2. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (errors and confusions)
    By Mal12345 in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-09-2017, 11:34 AM
  3. If I invented God, and God invented the Universe...
    By RaptorWizard in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-23-2013, 01:45 AM
  4. The origins of God and Religion
    By guesswho in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-26-2012, 06:44 PM
  5. Hologram theory and the existence of fate and/or God
    By Valiant in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-21-2012, 08:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO