Ideology

[Hermit Philosopher]

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?

Do I agree that “science vs. religion debates” boil down to differences of opinion?

No, because there are different types of debate between science and religion.

Instead I’d say this: when the fields debate matters of actual science, religion falls short and is often (not always, but frequently) blind to what is being said.
But when science accidentally debates matters “beyond” science (without realising that it is doing so), science fails because it cannot debate what it does not acknowledge to exist.

Good science acknowledges its limits and sticks to science, without needing to debate spiritual matters. I’m tempted to say that “good” religion could learn something from that: religion should stick to spiritual matters; not worldly ones.

And if both could take the other seriously, they could flourish together.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Hugh I]

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.

Okay. What if it was? You've got all the facts necessary to weigh the rational - you never need all the facts, can't ever have all the facts - but now which is the deciding factor? Ration or ideology? Isn't that redundant? If rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic and ideology means the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature then what we mean by values and principles is cultural influence. Is that accurate? I've always seen the science vs religion / creation vs evolution debate as . . . baffling, to say the least. To me it seems like a smokescreen for a class struggle of sorts, the incentive isn't science or theology, it's sociopolitical.

That explains the presentation - the debate itself, without compromising the integrity of science or theology itself.

With that we need to look only at the corruption. You can see that at a glance.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

Have a great day, and ...

... shalom and welcome to RF.​

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Okay. What if it was? You've got all the facts necessary to weigh the rational - you never need all the facts, can't ever have all the facts - but now which is the deciding factor? Ration or ideology? Isn't that redundant? If rational means based on or in accordance with reason or logic and ideology means the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature then what we mean by values and principles is cultural influence. Is that accurate? I've always seen the science vs religion / creation vs evolution debate as . . . baffling, to say the least. To me it seems like a smokescreen for a class struggle of sorts, the incentive isn't science or theology, it's sociopolitical.

That explains the presentation - the debate itself, without compromising the integrity of science or theology itself.

With that we need to look only at the corruption. You can see that at a glance.

I honestly don’t understand anything of what you are saying/ asking here. Sorry @Hugh I

ideology means the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature

But that is not what ideology actually means.

 

[gnostic]

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 affects 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.

I simply think that ideology is just a philosophy concerning political and social aspects of human societies, and have no place in either Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences, because you did mentioned “science”, in your words “ie observations, experimentation”, which are, of less relevant to Social Science.

in any of the fields of Natural Sciences, i don’t any of them are concern with any political, economical or social issues, or in your later reply “human nature“, in which you claimed ideology to address.

and I don’t think your definition to ideology to be correct. It isn’t “Ideology: the science of ideas”.

ideology is philosophy, not science, and it has nothing to do with science (at least not in natural sciences).

you seemed to be making up your own definition to what is ideology.

I also don’t like your definition on “faith” too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But that is not what ideology actually means.

True, but let's assume that our friend @Hugh I is a good egg who is, perhaps, channelling another good egg ...

`And only ONE for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'​

​

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.​

​

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't-- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'​

​

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.​

​

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.'​

​

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'​

​

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master-- that's all.'​

​

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them-- particularly verbs, they're the proudest--adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs--however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'​

​

`Would you tell me, please,' said Alice `what that means?'​

​

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'​

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.​

​

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'​

​

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark. [source]​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On a more serious note, this may prove interesting ...

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

There is always Thinkology.

 

[Hugh I]

Do I agree that “science vs. religion debates” boil down to differences of opinion?

I wouldn't use the term differences of opinion, I mean that both sides have various opinions but they are more often than not unfairly pitted against one another in an ideologically inappropriate manner. The differences of opinion should logically be irrelevant. I would just simplify that to it's apples and oranges. Comparable to trying to establish which method would be the best option for building a birdhouse, aeromechanics or psychology. Hypothetically, what is the function of science and what is the function of theology.

No, because there are different types of debate between science and religion.

Therein lies the problem, I think. There is no debate between science and religion. Only science minded and religious ideologues.

Instead I’d say this: when the fields debate matters of actual science, religion falls short and is often (not always, but frequently) blind to what is being said.

Problematic is the use of the terms "science" and "religion" in such an illogical fashion, Religion should always be blind to what is being said in science and science should always be blind to what is being said in religion. Here we are again using ambiguous terms of "science" and "religion" which actually have nothing to do with science or religion other than "science" and "religion" are being used as leverage in an ideological struggle.

But when science accidentally debates matters “beyond” science (without realising that it is doing so), science fails because it cannot debate what it does not acknowledge to exist.

Good science acknowledges its limits and sticks to science, without needing to debate spiritual matters. I’m tempted to say that “good” religion could learn something from that: religion should stick to spiritual matters; not worldly ones.

Exactly. Perfect.

And if both could take the other seriously, they could flourish together.

Not together, but rather simultaneously.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Religion should always be blind to what is being said in science and science should always be blind to what is being said in religion.

I mean… I’m possibly reading you wrong but that sort of sounds like what usually happens currently anyway. Historically however, that’s not always been the case and I disagree in that it “should be” like that.

I’d say that both science and religion miss out by dismissing each other in that manner.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

Humans are crap at that objective truth thing. That's why we have science to help us better sift through our thoughts and better determine what is really going on in this world ajd universe of ours.
But when someone says "science prooves..." then rest assured this person is nit the most scientifically literate as science does not prove things and it assumes that better evidence found tomorrow can change what is thought as true today.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If science only tests the natural world they don't test the supernatural world and therefore have no merit to evaluate it.

Please provide one (only one will do) "test" for the "supernatural world," so that we can all "evaluate it" together.

 

[Hugh I]

I honestly don’t understand anything of what you are saying/ asking here. Sorry @Hugh I

Don't be sorry, this is not unusual. You might as well ask the cat. I think outside the box. The box is here and I'm stumbling around way over there in the dark mumbling incoherently to myself. Take it with a grain of salt, as they say. What I was trying to get at, in the context of our discussion, is that our ideological suppositions are more cultural than factual. Your example weighed the rational with the ideological. Though you seemed to define ideology as being more what I would define as morality, namely as you put it values and principles.

But that is not what ideology actually means.

In this thread I provided a link to the originator of the term who defined it exactly as such (quoted below) and I also quoted the Oxford dictionary several times word for word: "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Archaic: the science of ideas; the study of their origin and nature."

"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

So, then how would you define ideology and what would be your basis for doing so?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

De Vinci also wasn't Christian, something that no doubt let him do all he did, including exhuming and dissecting human bodies. But he discovered cholesterol from food and that the woman's body does all the work during pregnancy doing that, and his anatomy sketches are still better than the crap illustrations found in most textbooks.

 

[Hugh I]

Please provide one (only one will do) "test" for the "supernatural world," so that we can all "evaluate it" together.

I'll say it again: "If science only tests the natural world they don't test the supernatural world and therefore have no merit to evaluate it."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll say it again: "If science only tests the natural world they don't test the supernatural world and therefore have no merit to evaluate it."

But how do they test for it?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Religion should always be blind to what is being said in science and science should always be blind to what is being said in religion.

"Should" is one of those useless words.

Religion was not blind to what the Copernican System said about our solar system -- that the Earth and other planets orbited the sun, rather than the sun and planets orbiting Earth. And because religion wasn't blind to that simple truth, they burned Giordano Bruno to death at the stake in the Campo Dei Fiori in Rome. And because the Church burned him for telling the truth, the Church committed wanton murder.

Today, too many religions are happy to punish, or kill, or even just hate people who happen to be different -- like LGBTQ+ folks -- because they suppose they must have "chosen to be that way." When asked, of course, they can't begin to tell you how the "chose" to be as they are, but that doesn't matter to them.

On the other hand, I don't know of anyone being burned alive by science for getting the wrong result, or doing the mathematics incorrectly. But maybe you know of one or two?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'll say it again: "If science only tests the natural world they don't test the supernatural world and therefore have no merit to evaluate it."

Saying it again is a great way to avoid answering the question that you were asked. And very convenient, too.

 

[Hugh I]

Saying it again is a great way to avoid answering the question that you were asked. And very convenient, too.

I want you listen to me. They don't test it. That's what I said. Why do you ask me to show you them doing what I've said repeatedly they don't do?

 

[Hugh I]

But how do they test for it?

They don't. If you mean supernatural, I said they don't. [ETA: though as an afterthought I would say that in the past "science" has tested what was thought to be supernatural when it becomes apparent it isn't.]