Queue on 7/9/2010 at 16:37
Quote Posted by Vivian
Yeah, but that's only the philosophical aspects of science they're rejecting - I bet you anything you like that all those rallies are organised using mobile phones and the internet, and that the participants have taken some of medicinal drugs over the last year or so. People still use the products of science, which (probably) cannot be obtained without the working philosophy and worldview that drives scientific research, so whether they like it or not, it basically doesn't actually matter what they think.
Sort of like black and Jewish cops protecting the demonstrators at a Neo-Nazi rally, right?
No?
Chimpy Chompy on 7/9/2010 at 16:42
I think religion can stick around with science as a personal response to\interpretation of the world. It'll have to be able to adapt, take on board new ideas etc. Whether, say, traditional christianity can be reconciled, I dunno.
But if people want to read some kind of spiritual meaning into things then as long as they don't let it contradict established theories, who cares?
Vivian on 7/9/2010 at 16:44
Quote Posted by Queue
Sort of like black and Jewish cops protecting the demonstrators at a Neo-Nazi rally, right?
You mean, if the neo-nazi's have to rely on the protection of a multi-cultural, democratic (ish) society to allow them to do all their neo-nazi-ing, then they've made themselves pointless before they even started? Yeah, I guess so.
Kolya on 7/9/2010 at 16:45
Quote Posted by SD
Science will win
In my experience religion isn't always driven by a a lack of understanding or by authorities. I think it helps people in ways that science cannot substitute. In fact if believing in God helps someone to overcome their personal fears it is preferable to giving them Prozac which is what the scientific solution often amounts to.
Moreover I don't see the overall benefit of engaging in a "war" between religion and science, even if science would actually win, which isn't certain at all.
Queue on 7/9/2010 at 16:52
But science has never instigated fear and hatred (and war) in people, unlike religion.
...except in some of those who are beyond psychotically devote and fear and hate science.
As far as the drug analody, I worry that God is becoming the new drug. Turning to God seems to be becoming the cure-all, instead of learning to deal with our problems.
Kolya on 7/9/2010 at 16:55
Science is far from being innocent in regard to human conflicts. Very far.
Queue on 7/9/2010 at 17:02
Very, very true. But the misuse of science as a tool for causing misery is done only in the hands of solitary evil (or misguided) individuals. Whereas the misuse of religion is a collective effort, as it demands a collective conformity.
It's like the idea that my religion is better than your religion, therefore you must be destroyed. Science doesn't dictate such rhetoric as it's not a philosophy.
Phatose on 7/9/2010 at 17:34
I'm inclined to believe that solitary evil cannot be an excuse for science's misdeeds - the entire platform is designed in such a way that a single man shouting untruths can be proven incorrect by anyone in the entire system. When that fails to happen, it ceases to be a solitary act of evil, and becomes the silent approval of all of science.
I imagine a quick perusal of what science had to say about the Negro in the 18th century will dispose of any belief that science is free from guilt on justifying hatred, or in it being the deeds of solitary players.
demagogue on 7/9/2010 at 18:31
There is definitely an ideology of science, which actually does operate like a type of religion in the sense of offering a world-view and a "right" way to act. Science (as a real-world institution) is rarely about simply clarifying the physical properties of some widget from an ivory tower, but finding out those properties to some end ... usually building more widgets and convincing people they're "better" because science says X about them, so please buy more of them... It encourages the thinking that what's possible is what's good, which isn't always clear. Or that technical solutions and getting more cold technical data is the "best" way to always deal with a situation. So it might look down on, e.g., holistic lifestyle stuff or "remedies" (as long as the person understands there's nothing magical going on, but on the other hand was restless leg syndrome really a "sickness" before they invented a medicine to sell for it?) or not scheduling every second of your life in a calender because it's more efficient.
Thinking about it that way, the tension isn't so much between science vs religion, but science AND religion vs a humanist perspective where human well-being is what's valued, and there's some skepticism of anybody trying to undermine it by claiming X is the "best way to think about it", and X doesn't want you to do Y ... saying it's from God or because "the science of X says so, and by the way we just happen to be selling X". Of course scientific truths are still important because they help us understand and improve human well-being, but the ideology that often goes with people trying too hard to be "rational" about everything, especially when they have a big conflict of interest involved ... not necessarily.
fett on 7/9/2010 at 18:36
Quote Posted by Queue
Whereas the misuse of religion is a collective effort, as it demands a collective conformity.
This is religion's most singular strength and danger. There's a mob mentality inherent to religion that doesn't exist in any other entity with such a widespread influence. When you can get 8000 men to sit in a stadium and collectively agree that they are all evil at heart and can do nothing good without god/a god*, there's no other explanation for it.
*promise keepers
