Ideology

[Hugh I]

Ideology: the science of ideas. It's the most significant and potentially harmful method for either advancement or stagnation. When an idea becomes a part of the individual or collective consciousness objectivity is sacrificed and the idea, right or wrong, must be defended rather than reexamined or even constructively criticized. Religion (i.e. theism, atheism) and science (i.e. observation, experimentation) have specific methods of justifying their ideology (i.e. claims of infallibility through illusory applications of the holy spirit, methodology).

Instead of the idea itself being implemented as objective truth, truth should be the sole objective.

Easier said than done, and easier to deceive oneself than not. Knowing that complete objectivity in its purest state is impossible is the first step to the fallible approach to objectivity inasmuch as it is possible.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think you've given me a lot to think about.

If I were to debate, I might pick at specific points. But I think I'm good for now.

 

[gnostic]

@Hugh I

There are no method in religion where ones just accept (faith) their beliefs. Faith-based beliefs are not methodology.

plus science only deal with the physical world, the natural world, something that can be tested through observations, such as repeatable experiments and acquiring evidence, both of which allow scientists to obtain information (data) about the natural & physical worlds.

At any time, when there are new alternative models that challenge existing scientific theories, these alternatives are not accepted by science community. The alternative models must undergo rigorous testing, the same efforts of testing as the previous models. It only when it pass the testing done in accordance with Scientific Method, and the hypothesis and test results are scrutinised and analysed by independent scientists (Peer Review), passed those 2 requirements, then there is a chance that (A) the hypothesis may become a new theory, replacing the old theory…or (B) it may just be added to the existing theory.

(B) allows for an existing theory to be modified or expanded, where the new hypothesis is incorporated into an existing theory. But whatever modifications, updates or expansions are added, they must still be rigorously tested. Sciences allow for changes, but the changes are only when observations (evidence & experiments) support such changes.

Religions are about believing in something that are not natural, not even real, such as magic, miracles, some sorts of life after death, some invisible beings, eg gods, spirits, angels, demons jinns, etc. These are things taken on faith, which involve justification without logic and without methodology.

Now creationists try to justify whatever creation myths they believe in, the “Creator” god in YEC (young earth creationism) or the “Designer“ in Intelligent Design, by using misinformation in science to justify their claims or beliefs. This misinformation is nothing more than misuse of science and nothing more than propaganda tactics.

but whether you call it, God, Creator or Designer, they amount to the same thing: superstitions.

superstitions that some unseen but supernatural powerful beings behind the creation or behind the design. How are that any different from believing in fairies pollinating or growing plants, or angels or chariot-driving deity (eg Helios) causing the movement of the Sun across the sky, etc?

The claim of “God did it” or the “Designer did it”, are just classical superstitions, nothing more, nothing less. There are no testable explanations, no logical methodology are required.

Your comparisons of science with religion in the OP, are weak.

 

[Heyo]

Ideology: the science of ideas.

I've never heard of ideology as a science. Which university has an ideology department? Can I become a Master of Ideology?
Simply attaching -ology to something doesn't make it a science, otherwise astrology would be a science.

 

[Hugh I]

@Hugh I

There are no method in religion where ones just accept (faith) their beliefs. Faith-based beliefs are not methodology.

Method is a particular form of procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one. Faith is trust. The Latin word credit means literally "one believes," the words credit, credible, credentials, signify faith. Religion is, in essence, ritual and repetition. Of course there is methodology in faith and faith in science. Their methodology is only different.

plus science only deal with the physical world, the natural world, something that can be tested through observations, such as repeatable experiments and acquiring evidence, both of which allow scientists to obtain information (data) about the natural & physical worlds.

Agreed.

At any time, when there are new alternative models that challenge existing scientific theories, these alternatives are not accepted by science community.

In religion it's called a schism. It causes divisions, alternate paradigms are created, in science it results in dogmatic conformity.

The alternative models must undergo rigorous testing, the same efforts of testing as the previous models. It only when it pass the testing done in accordance with Scientific Method, and the hypothesis and test results are scrutinised and analysed by independent scientists (Peer Review), passed those 2 requirements, then there is a chance that (A) the hypothesis may become a new theory, replacing the old theory…or (B) it may just be added to the existing theory.

(B) allows for an existing theory to be modified or expanded, where the new hypothesis is incorporated into an existing theory. But whatever modifications, updates or expansions are added, they must still be rigorously tested. Sciences allow for changes, but the changes are only when observations (evidence & experiments) support such changes.

Theoretically. When changes are required - and often with a great deal of contention or decades of devastating effect, for example with Ignaz Semmelweis or Dr. Ancel Keys.

Religions are about believing in something that are not natural, not even real, such as magic, miracles, some sorts of life after death, some invisible beings, eg gods, spirits, angels, demons jinns, etc. These are things taken on faith, which involve justification without logic and without methodology.

People in occidental cultures seem to posses an astoundingly myopic perspective of religion which is based upon the misrepresentation of Abrahamic religions. If science only tests the natural world they don't test the supernatural world and therefore have no merit to evaluate it. Ideologues, in the name of science, often attempt this with ridiculous results. There is no logic or reasonable methodology, only ideology. The very incentive for doing this, obviously ideological, is an uninformed sociopolitical conflict based upon ignorance which I've just alluded to here. Science becomes dogma to the ideologically fixated unscientific adherents of atheism as it (science) becomes profoundly more religious in nature. Ironically people will lose faith in science as they have religion.

The question is, was the loss constructive? Was it born of necessity or of ignorance?

Now creationists try to justify whatever creation myths they believe in, the “Creator” god in YEC (young earth creationism) or the “Designer“ in Intelligent Design, by using misinformation in science to justify their claims or beliefs. This misinformation is nothing more than misuse of science and nothing more than propaganda tactics.

Perhaps, and the rebuttal is only more of the same. The other side of the coin. Science was born from theism. All cultures are predicated upon mythological presuppositions. Some supernatural and some secular. The unnecessary contentions between the religious ideologue and scientism only serve to display the similarities in their poorly constructed argument. It's pointless from the start.

but whether you call it, God, Creator or Designer, they amount to the same thing: superstitions.

superstitions that some unseen but supernatural powerful beings behind the creation or behind the design. How are that any different from believing in fairies pollinating or growing plants, or angels or chariot-driving deity (eg Helios) causing the movement of the Sun across the sky, etc?

The claim of “God did it” or the “Designer did it”, are just classical superstitions, nothing more, nothing less. There are no testable explanations, no logical methodology are required. Your comparisons of science with religion in the OP, are weak.

It seems ironic to me that this thread is about ideology and human nature. Your argument seems to be that science is observation of the natural world by suggesting the scientific method somehow negates human nature, and my comparisons are week?

 

[Hugh I]

I've never heard of ideology as a science. Which university has an ideology department? Can I become a Master of Ideology?
Simply attaching -ology to something doesn't make it a science, otherwise astrology would be a science.

"The term ideology originates from French idéologie, itself deriving from combining Greek: idéā (ἰδέα, 'notion, pattern'; close to the Lockean sense of idea) and -logíā (-λογῐ́ᾱ, 'the study of').

The term ideology, and the system of ideas associated with it, was coined in 1796 by Antoine Destutt de Tracy while in prison pending trial during the Reign of Terror, where he read the works of Locke and Condillac. Hoping to form a secure foundation for the moral and political sciences, Tracy devised the term for a "science of ideas," basing such upon two things:

1. the sensations that people experience as they interact with the material world; and
2. the ideas that form in their minds due to those sensations."

Ideology; the science of ideas

 

[Secret Chief]

I've never heard of ideology as a science. Which university has an ideology department? Can I become a Master of Ideology?
Simply attaching -ology to something doesn't make it a science, otherwise astrology would be a science.

Typical Taurean comment.

 

[Heyo]

Typical Taurean comment.

From a typical Gemini.

 

[danieldemol]

Ah the apologist up is really down, black is really white, science is really religion and religion is really science argument in my opinion.

 

[gnostic]

It seems ironic to me that this thread is about ideology and human nature. Your argument seems to be that science is observation of the natural world by suggesting the scientific method somehow negates human nature, and my comparisons are week?

my reply was regards to only “Physical Sciences” and “Natural Sciences”, where no hypotheses automatically become scientific theories, so each hypotheses must pass the ALL 3 requirements:

1. FALSIFIABILITY
2. SCIENTIFIC METHOD (which is divided into 2 main parts:
   • formulation of the hypothesis
   • testing the hypothesis (which include observations (eg evidence, experiments) & analysing the evidence)
3. PEER REVIEW

The 1st two are essential to both Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences…but they are not so essential to Social Sciences (eg psychology, behavioural science, sociology, demography, anthropology, archaeology, comparative religion, comparative mythology, economics, political science, etc).

Social Sciences is a completely different sphere of sciences, that focused on the following studies:

• human behaviour & emotions
• human cultures & societal interactions
• human achievements

meaning, Social Sciences have to do with anything related to humans, behaviourally, socially or culturally, and politically.

That you are talking of “human nature”, then you would be mainly focused on psychological or behavioural aspects of humans, hence the non-physical aspects of studying humans (hence it would fall the umbrella of Social Science, not Natural Sciences, like not human biology.)

it is clear from my 1st reply that I wasn’t talking about any branches of Social Sciences.

Natural Sciences, including the following sciences:

• physics
• chemistry
• Earth science
• astronomy
• life sciences (all biology-related fields), but not just about human biology.

While some Social Sciences do deal with evidence, the evidence don’t require to be “empirical”, and measurements acquired (eg from examining are often qualitative (in Social Sciences), not quantitative measurements (required in Natural Sciences).

Anyway, your topic of choice, is on “ideology”, and that have more to do with social and political philosophy…which again don’t fall into the purview of either Physical Sciences or Natural Sciences.

You started this thread in Science and Religion debate forum, so I would presume that this ideology topic have to do with natural science’s biology, like Evolution, and to do with the religious Creationism.

if my assumption is right, then speaking of ideology is weak.

If my assumption is wrong, and have nothing to do with evolution & creation than I would apologise.

Do this ideology have to do with Evolution vs Creationism?

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps, and the rebuttal is only more of the same. The other side of the coin. Science was born from theism. All cultures are predicated upon mythological presuppositions. Some supernatural and some secular. The unnecessary contentions between the religious ideologue and scientism only serve to display the similarities in their poorly constructed argument. It's pointless from the start.

The history of natural science was born from the Archaic period of Greek Natural Philosophy, where philosophers like Thales, tried to untangle observations of nature from religious beliefs, from superstitions, from religious traditions and myths.

Of course, it never completely break off ties between religion and science, as shown in the relationships between astronomy and astrology, and astrology continued to plague and hinder advances of astronomy right up to the 19th century.

Everything that we looked at in the past, is really Natural Philosophy.

Natural Sciences only truly began in the 19th century, when it was broken down into the following sciences:

• physics
• chemistry
• Earth science
• astronomy
• Life Sciences (which included everything biology related)

Religion still trying interfere with sciences in the 19th century, as it was shown after the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859, followed by the debate at Oxford, between Samuel Wilberforce (bishop of Oxford) and Thomas Henry Huxley, in 1860.

In the previous century, it was time of Age of Enlightenment, where philosophers of the time, encouraged the head of states in Europe, to separate religion from state, particularly in regards to politics and laws. Secularism was not about ridding religion, but about stopping religions (the churches) in this case, from interfering with political policies and to provide equal status between believers and non-believers in the eye of the law.

This secular divide, didn’t happen in the 18th century with education of public schools and universities. In the 19th century, creation was still taught in science classes.

It was Huxley himself, who changed the policies of universities and public schools throughout Great Britain, to separate science classes and lectures from theology and other religious studies, including removing creation from science.

This of course, wouldn’t stop creation being taught with science, in schools and colleges owned and run by the Church of England or Catholic Church.

The main problem with religion being taught in science classes, is that God and angels are not something you can observe and test.

The only reasons that sciences have so many discoveries from the 19th century to the present, it was no longer dictated by religious beliefs.

sure, I am not denying the contributions of religious people to science and mathematics, philosophers from Christians, Jews and Muslims, but that have to do with the individuals’ insight, enquiring minds and their hard works, and not to scriptures (eg Bible, Tanakh & Qur’an) and nothing to do with religious teachings or religious traditions.

Yes, Leonardo de Vinci and Michelangelo were great geniuses, but neither the Bible, nor Church teachings, taught any of these geniuses how to paint or sculpt, nor how de Vinci to invent.

neither the church, nor the Bible, taught Isaac Newton about the laws of motion or about gravity, or about calculus.

James Clerk Maxwell was indeed a very deeply religious Scotsman, but the Bible didn’t in any ways teach him about the physics of electromagnetic fields.

you are giving religions far too much credits for something they haven’t done.

it wasn’t religions that taught people how to hunt, fish or farm. And though Genesis credited Noah with growing grapes in vineyard and making wine, that’s also not true, as there are evidence (eg wine press, fermentation vat) in cave near Aremenian village of Arni. Those evidence have been dated to 4100 BCE.

Adam and Cain being the earliest farmers, Abel being shepherd, and Noah being the first winemaker, are all works of fiction.

 

[Hugh I]

Ah the apologist up is really down, black is really white, science is really religion and religion is really science argument in my opinion.

Ah the response of an ideologue evidence is opinion facts are propaganda truth is illusion and money talks the sheep draw the line in the sand for the shepherd in wolf's clothing and both science and religion are his flock.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Ideology: the science of ideas.

Sorry, but as far as I know, that is not the usual definition of ideology.

The term ideology refers instead to a set of held, coherent ideas (a package, if you will), broadly impacting on a person’s general mottos and way of life. Ideologies are often political but are found also in industry/ corporations (sometimes called “philosophies” instead), etc.

I know people always want sources on here, so here’s a link: Ideology - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Humbly
Hermit

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Instead of the idea itself being implemented as objective truth, truth should be the sole objective.

Strangely, I feel the exact opposite.

In relation to ideologies (in the standard definition of the term), we speak of fundamental concepts, like purpose, values and principles. These, we apply in practice always to existing situations (real predicaments).

When you talk about “objective truths”(measurable facts, I suppose you mean) in the manner that you do here; it seems to me that what you fail to acknowledge is that in practice; you very seldom have access to all the information surrounding an actual situation (real predicament) required for you to claim that you are addressing/assessing it based on facts.

Unless you are dealing with purely abstract situations in which you have all relating data stored on a drive that you can access and run through a program that will analyse all variables against each other, in practice, few things are matters of fact. Instead they are matters of perspective (the ones available to you) and of principle (the ones you hold).

And this is so, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Instead of the idea itself being implemented as objective truth, truth should be the sole objective.

Apologies, but I “posted” before I was done last time.

I mentioned that I think of it in the exact opposite way. What I meant is that, as I am fairly certain that I very seldom have any way of accessing all facts relating to any actual situation before me; I must rely and base my actions on my ideology (its values and principles).

For example: based on the relating facts I happen to have access to regarding X situation, it may appear that -on a purely rational level- assassinating Y is a “good” thing. And theoretically speaking, it may even be so that, taking into account all relating facts (which are not ever really known to anyone), on an entirely rational level, it still is a “good” thing to assassinate Y. Yet, I will not be the one to assassinate Y and I will not be the one because, while I know that I don’t possess all relating facts needed to reach the conclusion that it is “good” to assassinate Y, I do know that it is not “good” to assassinate Y according to the values and principles embedded in my ideology.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Hugh I]

my reply was regards to only “Physical Sciences” and “Natural Sciences”, where no hypotheses automatically become scientific theories, so each hypotheses must pass the ALL 3 requirements:

1. FALSIFIABILITY
2. SCIENTIFIC METHOD (which is divided into 2 main parts:
   • formulation of the hypothesis
   • testing the hypothesis (which include observations (eg evidence, experiments) & analysing the evidence)
3. PEER REVIEW

The 1st two are essential to both Physical Sciences & Natural Sciences…but they are not so essential to Social Sciences (eg psychology, behavioural science, sociology, demography, anthropology, archaeology, comparative religion, comparative mythology, economics, political science, etc).

Social Sciences is a completely different sphere of sciences, that focused on the following studies:

• human behaviour & emotions
• human cultures & societal interactions
• human achievements

meaning, Social Sciences have to do with anything related to humans, behaviourally, socially or culturally, and politically.

That you are talking of “human nature”, then you would be mainly focused on psychological or behavioural aspects of humans, hence the non-physical aspects of studying humans (hence it would fall the umbrella of Social Science, not Natural Sciences, like not human biology.)

it is clear from my 1st reply that I wasn’t talking about any branches of Social Sciences.

Natural Sciences, including the following sciences:

• physics
• chemistry
• Earth science
• astronomy
• life sciences (all biology-related fields), but not just about human biology.

While some Social Sciences do deal with evidence, the evidence don’t require to be “empirical”, and measurements acquired (eg from examining are often qualitative (in Social Sciences), not quantitative measurements (required in Natural Sciences).

Anyway, your topic of choice, is on “ideology”, and that have more to do with social and political philosophy…which again don’t fall into the purview of either Physical Sciences or Natural Sciences.

You started this thread in Science and Religion debate forum, so I would presume that this ideology topic have to do with natural science’s biology, like Evolution, and to do with the religious Creationism.

if my assumption is right, then speaking of ideology is weak.

If my assumption is wrong, and have nothing to do with evolution & creation than I would apologise.

Do this ideology have to do with Evolution vs Creationism?

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

The topic of discussion is ideology. The OP is an anecdotal explanation of the basics of how ideology effects human behavior, and though it could, I think, be applied to anything, the OP specifically dealt with the forum theme of science and religion. So, that's a broad and open subject for discussion. Your response offers a fairly detailed description and comparison of the physical, natural and social sciences. So, in response to this I would say that the subject isn't specifically about evolution vs. creationism as much as it is how ideology reflects and effects that specific debate. In the case of reflecting I mean how is the subject (science, sciences, theology, religion) represented or perceived by the public. This has nothing to do with the science and theology itself, but is primarily concerned with the actual debate. But also, in the case of effect, what effect does ideology have on the science and theology itself, not from the perspective of the masses, but rather the scientists and theologians.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religion (i.e. theism, atheism) and science (i.e. observation, experimentation) have specific methods of justifying their ideology (i.e. claims of infallibility through illusory applications of the holy spirit, methodology).

You casually tell us

• that atheism is a religion, and
• that science is an ideology that claims infallibility.

This should be a fun thread.

 

[Hugh I]

Strangely, I feel the exact opposite.

In relation to ideologies (in the standard definition of the term), we speak of fundamental concepts, like purpose, values and principles. These, we apply in practice always to existing situations (real predicaments).

When you talk about “objective truths”(measurable facts, I suppose you mean) in the manner that you do here; it seems to me that what you fail to acknowledge is that in practice; you very seldom have access to all the information surrounding an actual situation (real predicament) required for you to claim that you are addressing/assessing it based on facts.

Unless you are dealing with purely abstract situations in which you have all relating data stored on a drive that you can access and run through a program that will analyse all variables against each other, in practice, few things are matters of fact. Instead they are matters of perspective (the ones available to you) and of principle (the ones you hold).

And this is so, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

As far as I can tell, that almost completely sums it up from a more practical presumption than the idealistic one I presented in the OP. In essence, the science vs religion debate, no matter how much evidence is exchanged, or at least presented, is opinion. Not science. Not theology. Ideology. Would you agree?

 

[PureX]

Ideology: the science of ideas.

Well, technically, the "study of ideas". Science is a methodology of study, yes, but there are others.

When an idea becomes a part of the individual or collective consciousness objectivity is sacrificed and the idea, right or wrong, must be defended rather than reexamined or even constructively criticized.

When our ideas about reality become our reality (which is inevitable) our egos tend to defend them as such regardless of their viability. This is true. And it is why every intelligent person will have had to learn to reign in their ego and it's inclination to 'auto-defend' one's idea of reality so as to be able to learn new ideas about reality.

Religion (i.e. theism, atheism) and science (i.e. observation, experimentation) have specific methods of justifying their ideology (i.e. claims of infallibility through illusory applications of the holy spirit, methodology).

Instead of the idea itself being implemented as objective truth, truth should be the sole objective.

Unfortunately, the "truth" is holistic, and we are limited. So we will never get to know the whole truth of things. And in only knowing partial truth, we can never be certain how what we don't know would change what we do know if we knew it. So certainty regarding truth is not possible for us. The best we can get is "relatively true given the current limitations of our knowledge". Which places it more in the category of honesty rather than truth. And that is what I believe we humans should be pursuing ... honesty. Not truth. Because honesty is obtainable, Truth is not.

Easier said than done, and easier to deceive oneself than not.

It's inevitable given our limitations. But we can at least remain aware of this, and be skeptical and open to other ideas.

Knowing that complete objectivity in its purest state is impossible is the first step to the fallible approach to objectivity inasmuch as it is possible.

"Objectivity" is a philosophical fantasy that way too many of us have fallen for. We'd be far wiser to drop the idea all together and accept the relative and subjective existence that we are living in.

 

[Hugh I]

You casually tell us

• that atheism is a religion, and
• that science is an ideology that claims infallibility.

This should be a fun thread.

Ah, now I see where this is going. Duh. Should have seen that coming, huh?

Actually for the sake of argument, let's look at your take on my casual announcement.

Atheism is a theism. That is, a part of theism. A position or preference regarding theism as apolitical is political in that it is a position or preference regarding politics. Do you believe in gods? Yes. Do you believe in gods? No. Are you involved in politics? No. Are you involved in politics? Yes. It seems that simple to me.

Do I think atheism, and science as well, are religion? Lets define religion as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance." (Oxford)

Is science, in my estimation, ideological? Absolutely not. And yes. For clarification in both cases (theism and science) we are, well at least I was, referring to practice as well as presentation. Ideology is simply ideas. Science is an idea. But science minded ideologues don't like to be referred to as ideological, it seems. It's the science minded ideologue that, not so much claims as subtly suggests emphatically that science ultimately is infallible. No need to argue with that because it makes absolutely no sense and yet is true. Why?

Because science isn't presenting the argument. The argument is completely ideological.