Science as a worldview is just like every other dogma

[Subduction Zone]

You need to list some of the dogma if you want to discuss it. I can't think of any dogma related to the scientific methodologies.

This is a common claim but no one can seem to find any.

 

[Milton Platt]

This is a common claim but no one can seem to find any.

He seems to have abandoned the thread after creating it.........

 

[ChristineM]

Every dogma has a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. Anyone who is a proponent of a particular dogma will claim someone else is "insane" if they do not accept the same set of assumptions are being true without question.

When I was in my 20s I was a staunch atheist. But just for fun in usenet news groups under atheism vs Christianity I started arguing the pro-theist position. I was bored of arguing the atheist position because it was too easy. I found arguing the theist position to be much more challenging! After about 10 years of arguing the theist position a funny thing happened to me. I started to believe in my own arguments! I convinced myself which then made me go down a completely different path of trying to understand the nature of belief systems.

I've heard many atheists and scientists flame religious beliefs and religious dogmas over the years as if they themselves did not have any dogma of their own but were speaking from a position of absolute truth. I've always suspected the atheist/science dogma existed. But it's difficult to argue with really smart people over their assumptions.

People get really angry at you when you question their dogma. It's almost as if by challenging someone's dogma you are making a personal attack on the person themselves. Many people view having their dogma questioned as being an ad hominem attack.

So when I found this talk on "The Science Delusion" and I was immediately interested. It's actually a book by a scientist name Rubert Sheldrake who is widely considered to be a complete crackpot by mainstream science but an absolute genius by people who like to think outside the box. I don't accept or believe everything Sheldrake says but I absolutely love the way he makes me think outside the box.

Here is an hour long talk which is pretty much a reading of his book. The first ten minutes are absolutely brilliant in my mind. I think he really pegs the science delusion as being a dogma. Scientists are not suppose to have any dogma or bias. As Sheldrake points out, it's not the case:

Since the science delusion is just a dogma, despite its successes with gadgets and weapons, it's really no better than any other dogma. Being a slave to one dogma is no better than being a slave to any other.

Anyway, hopefully if you read this post you are open minded enough to at least watch the first 10 minutes of the video. Of course, if you are an atheist/scientist blind to your own dogma then you will probably just dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and not worth your time. People just love their dogmas!

If science is a dogma then it is a dogma that, unlike religion, learns from accumulated knowledge and evidence.

Oh right, that precludes it being a dogma.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The ancient Greeks gave us western democracy, particularly Athens, not the Jewish Tanakh, nor the Christian gospels.

Athens wasn’t the only citystate with democracy, but it certainly was the most prominent one at that time.

Rome had some democracy in their Republic system form of government.

Although, the highest office of that time were two annually elected consuls, they cannot do everything they like, since many of any consul’s proposed policy have to wait for the Senate (seats filled with former consuls) to vote, if such policy can pass. A third group, can veto the policy of consul or policy of the senate, by the plebeian-elected tribunes, who acted for the interests of the ordinary citizens.

The Roman senate and the tribunes, sort of reminds me of Australia’s House Of Senate and House of Representatives that can squash many policies of the current prime minister.

There are no ancient Jewish or Christian governments that have anything like democracy. The kings of Judah and Israel, can sentence any subject, to death, without a trial. Prophets can order kings to massacre whole nation on the whim of the prophet or more precisely the whim of the God that the prophet supposedly speak for (eg Samuel and King Saul, regarding to the Amalekites).

In Greece and Rome, only certain male citizens had the vote. The US began this way as well, but didn't stay this way. The idea of the dignity of all people, that "all men are created equal" took a while to sink in, but it did.

Similarly with the concept of human rights. You did not have Greece or Rome proclaiming that certain unalienable human rights were endowed to us by virtue of the gods.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Judeo-Christianity gave us absolute rule under kings with no democracy. The people who wrote our constitution did not see all people created equal as the words would imply as evidenced by the fact that the one who wrote those words was a slave holder. Our democratic history shows that Native Americans were not consider equal. Science has shown more that Judeo-Christianity that we are more alike than we are different.

Judeo-Christianity was not static. It evolved. The divine right of kings fell by the wayside. Slavery was overthrown with the help of very religious Christians. Attitudes towards Native Americans have reversed. What was a seed thousands of years ago, grew into a sapling, and is now a full grown tree bearing fruit. Not just with democracy and human rights, but with the growing idea that we are stewards of the earth. And it is not yet done.

 

[gnostic]

In Greece and Rome, only certain male citizens had the vote. The US began this way as well, but didn't stay this way. The idea of the dignity of all people, that "all men are created equal" took a while to sink in, but it did.

I know all about that, about how women and slaves weren’t allow to vote. But the system of electing officials through voting, did originate in Greece and Rome.

Ancient Israel and Judah, and then Judaea have no equivalent system of governing.

For millennia, since Christians gained political powers (Constantine), rulers were more often in the hands of monarchs, and noblemen (eg feudal barons).

As to the US, democracy had to do with men making the decision to elect presidents and governors, but it wasn’t religion (eg Christianity) itself that created democracy; neither the bible, nor church (and church teachings) were responsible for democracy.

 

[gnostic]

Similarly with the concept of human rights. You did not have Greece or Rome proclaiming that certain unalienable human rights were endowed to us by virtue of the gods.

Well, neither did the bible.

God certainly didn’t give “unalienable human rights” to the people.

What human rights did Job’s children have, when God had them slaughtered, simply to win a petty wager against Satan?

 

[Bear Wild]

Judeo-Christianity was not static. It evolved. The divine right of kings fell by the wayside. Slavery was overthrown with the help of very religious Christians. Attitudes towards Native Americans have reversed. What was a seed thousands of years ago, grew into a sapling, and is now a full grown tree bearing fruit. Not just with democracy and human rights, but with the growing idea that we are stewards of the earth. And it is not yet done.

I agree Judeo-Christianity has always been changing and diversifying all of the time but that does not have anything to do with democracy. The western democracy was influence more from economic patterns and philosophical developments than religion. Christianly supported autocracy and to limit freedoms. Attitudes towards Native Americans may have improved recently but the overall record towards Native Americans is still very poor.

 

[Jim]

I've heard many atheists and scientists flame religious beliefs and religious dogmas over the years as if they themselves did not have any dogma of their own but were speaking from a position of absolute truth.

I think that some of what people call "science" is like religious dogma, and some isn't. For example when it's people treating it as an infallible source of knowledge in Internet debates, then I think that's exactly the same thing as religious dogma, substituting the word "science" in the place of "God," and media stories and faction propaganda in the place of religious scriptures. There's another kind of science though, the kind of science that gave science its aura of authority in the first place, that's best exemplified in math and physics: continually improving our understanding of how things work, in us and in the world around us. People can be dogmatic about that also, but it isn't dogma in itself.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree Judeo-Christianity has always been changing and diversifying all of the time but that does not have anything to do with democracy. The western democracy was influence more from economic patterns and philosophical developments than religion. Christianly supported autocracy and to limit freedoms. Attitudes towards Native Americans may have improved recently but the overall record towards Native Americans is still very poor.

Where was the origin of modern democracy where you have universal sufferage? The Christian west.

We have a ways to go for NDN rights, no doubt. I'd like to see the treaties enforced that are still active, for example the Black Hills to go to the Lakota.

Nevertheless, you no longer see Christians kidnapping NDN children and placing them in boarding schools where their heritage and language are stamped out.

Although Jewish, I get around as I am a student of comparative religion, and I believe it was in a Catholic bookstore that I picked up my copy of Lakota Spirituality.

I think it is sad that so much cross cultural contamination has taken place. Even Black Elk became Catholic and a catechist. As a Jew, if I were to give advice to the Native Americans it would be the following, in order to not lose their various tribal identities:
1. Never give up the dream of returning to your homeland, no matter how dim.
2. Never give up your language.
3. Above all, never give up your religion (which of course is tied to the land).
Those things are what preserved us during a 2000 year diaspora.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, neither did the bible.

God certainly didn’t give “unalienable human rights” to the people.

What human rights did Job’s children have, when God had them slaughtered, simply to win a petty wager against Satan?

The concept of inalienable rights comes from the idea that all of humanity is made in the image of God, aka the dignity of the individual. You had for example, the right of blind justice in the Torah. You had the right of the poor not to go hungry. You had the right of wealth redistribution and debt forgiveness every so many years so that society could start over on an equal basis. You had the right to life. Etc.

As to death, there have always been those situations that are not considered murder: war and capital punishment come to mind. God is the author of life and death--just as we should be thankful to him for our very lives, we cannot condemn him should he choose to take our lives away, whether it be by illness, catastrophe, age, etc.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As to the US, democracy had to do with men making the decision to elect presidents and governors, but it wasn’t religion (eg Christianity) itself that created democracy; neither the bible, nor church (and church teachings) were responsible for democracy.

It was the Christian west that produced "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." It is the Christian west which has produced modern democracy which has spread around the world. Was there inspiration from other cultures? Sure. But the Christian west took it and made it plausible and enduring, made it attractive enough that it would spread of its own accord.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Every dogma has a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. Anyone who is a proponent of a particular dogma will claim someone else is "insane" if they do not accept the same set of assumptions are being true without question.

When I was in my 20s I was a staunch atheist. But just for fun in usenet news groups under atheism vs Christianity I started arguing the pro-theist position. I was bored of arguing the atheist position because it was too easy. I found arguing the theist position to be much more challenging! After about 10 years of arguing the theist position a funny thing happened to me. I started to believe in my own arguments! I convinced myself which then made me go down a completely different path of trying to understand the nature of belief systems.

I've heard many atheists and scientists flame religious beliefs and religious dogmas over the years as if they themselves did not have any dogma of their own but were speaking from a position of absolute truth. I've always suspected the atheist/science dogma existed. But it's difficult to argue with really smart people over their assumptions.

People get really angry at you when you question their dogma. It's almost as if by challenging someone's dogma you are making a personal attack on the person themselves. Many people view having their dogma questioned as being an ad hominem attack.

So when I found this talk on "The Science Delusion" and I was immediately interested. It's actually a book by a scientist name Rubert Sheldrake who is widely considered to be a complete crackpot by mainstream science but an absolute genius by people who like to think outside the box. I don't accept or believe everything Sheldrake says but I absolutely love the way he makes me think outside the box.

Here is an hour long talk which is pretty much a reading of his book. The first ten minutes are absolutely brilliant in my mind. I think he really pegs the science delusion as being a dogma. Scientists are not suppose to have any dogma or bias. As Sheldrake points out, it's not the case:

Since the science delusion is just a dogma, despite its successes with gadgets and weapons, it's really no better than any other dogma. Being a slave to one dogma is no better than being a slave to any other.

Anyway, hopefully if you read this post you are open minded enough to at least watch the first 10 minutes of the video. Of course, if you are an atheist/scientist blind to your own dogma then you will probably just dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and not worth your time. People just love their dogmas!

The only thing that science has in common with religion, is that they are both disciplines.

Scientific Discipline; is the self-regulating behavior that must follow the objective guidelines established by the scientific method of inquiry(observation, hypothesis, prediction, experiment, conclusion, and Repeat).

Religion Discipline; "is the practice of training people to obey rules or a code of behaviour, and using punishment to correct disobedience".

Science can't be Dogmatic, since at best it only claims certainty not truth. Religious beliefs are certainly Dogmatic, since they all claim truths not certainty.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Every dogma has a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof.

That's true, but this by itself doesn't make science a religion or put science on par with religion.

The thing that sets science apart is that its set of assumptions and methodology has produced practical real world results: modern medicine that has considerably reduced pain and suffering and radically prolonged our life spans, and technology that has made our lives incredibly easier. The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Every dogma has a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. Anyone who is a proponent of a particular dogma will claim someone else is "insane" if they do not accept the same set of assumptions are being true without question.

When I was in my 20s I was a staunch atheist. But just for fun in usenet news groups under atheism vs Christianity I started arguing the pro-theist position. I was bored of arguing the atheist position because it was too easy. I found arguing the theist position to be much more challenging! After about 10 years of arguing the theist position a funny thing happened to me. I started to believe in my own arguments! I convinced myself which then made me go down a completely different path of trying to understand the nature of belief systems.

I've heard many atheists and scientists flame religious beliefs and religious dogmas over the years as if they themselves did not have any dogma of their own but were speaking from a position of absolute truth. I've always suspected the atheist/science dogma existed. But it's difficult to argue with really smart people over their assumptions.

People get really angry at you when you question their dogma. It's almost as if by challenging someone's dogma you are making a personal attack on the person themselves. Many people view having their dogma questioned as being an ad hominem attack.

So when I found this talk on "The Science Delusion" and I was immediately interested. It's actually a book by a scientist name Rubert Sheldrake who is widely considered to be a complete crackpot by mainstream science but an absolute genius by people who like to think outside the box. I don't accept or believe everything Sheldrake says but I absolutely love the way he makes me think outside the box.

Here is an hour long talk which is pretty much a reading of his book. The first ten minutes are absolutely brilliant in my mind. I think he really pegs the science delusion as being a dogma. Scientists are not suppose to have any dogma or bias. As Sheldrake points out, it's not the case:

Since the science delusion is just a dogma, despite its successes with gadgets and weapons, it's really no better than any other dogma. Being a slave to one dogma is no better than being a slave to any other.

Anyway, hopefully if you read this post you are open minded enough to at least watch the first 10 minutes of the video. Of course, if you are an atheist/scientist blind to your own dogma then you will probably just dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and not worth your time. People just love their dogmas!

I'll clear up some misconceptions...
- Scientists are indeed supposed to have bias. Not that bias is intended,
but it's recognized as a common trait in humans & therefore scientists.
- Science, if it is to be looked upon as "dogma", is different from others.
It makes no claims about untestable beliefs such as gods, afterlife, etc.
Other dogmas are typically faith based, with "not even wrong" beliefs.
- Science is the opposite of delusion, being more grounded in reality
than other "dogmas".

 

[Regiomontanus]

Every dogma has a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. Anyone who is a proponent of a particular dogma will claim someone else is "insane" if they do not accept the same set of assumptions are being true without question.

When I was in my 20s I was a staunch atheist. But just for fun in usenet news groups under atheism vs Christianity I started arguing the pro-theist position. I was bored of arguing the atheist position because it was too easy. I found arguing the theist position to be much more challenging! After about 10 years of arguing the theist position a funny thing happened to me. I started to believe in my own arguments! I convinced myself which then made me go down a completely different path of trying to understand the nature of belief systems.

I've heard many atheists and scientists flame religious beliefs and religious dogmas over the years as if they themselves did not have any dogma of their own but were speaking from a position of absolute truth. I've always suspected the atheist/science dogma existed. But it's difficult to argue with really smart people over their assumptions.

People get really angry at you when you question their dogma. It's almost as if by challenging someone's dogma you are making a personal attack on the person themselves. Many people view having their dogma questioned as being an ad hominem attack.

So when I found this talk on "The Science Delusion" and I was immediately interested. It's actually a book by a scientist name Rubert Sheldrake who is widely considered to be a complete crackpot by mainstream science but an absolute genius by people who like to think outside the box. I don't accept or believe everything Sheldrake says but I absolutely love the way he makes me think outside the box.

Here is an hour long talk which is pretty much a reading of his book. The first ten minutes are absolutely brilliant in my mind. I think he really pegs the science delusion as being a dogma. Scientists are not suppose to have any dogma or bias. As Sheldrake points out, it's not the case:

Since the science delusion is just a dogma, despite its successes with gadgets and weapons, it's really no better than any other dogma. Being a slave to one dogma is no better than being a slave to any other.

Anyway, hopefully if you read this post you are open minded enough to at least watch the first 10 minutes of the video. Of course, if you are an atheist/scientist blind to your own dogma then you will probably just dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and not worth your time. People just love their dogmas!

"Give us one free miracle and we will explain the rest"

Love that quote. Sheldrake makes many great points, thank you for sharing this video link.

I encounter the worldview he describes often when I talk to cosmologists.


Peace

 

[ecco]

It was the Christian west that produced "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." .

It was the Christian west that produced "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" as half of the Nation approved of owning slaves because it was justified by the Bible.

 

[Bear Wild]

It was the Christian west that produced "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." It is the Christian west which has produced modern democracy which has spread around the world. Was there inspiration from other cultures? Sure. But the Christian west took it and made it plausible and enduring, made it attractive enough that it would spread of its own accord.

If they had listened to Alexander Humboldt it would have read "All life is created equal". We would be better off today if they had since he warned us back then of what could happen to our environment. It is sad that our leaders did not understand what he was saying. Then again he spoke out against slavery and yet Thomas Jefferson did not denounce slavery.

 

[osgart]

Some Religions make the claim that by simple observance through reason we can deduce that there is a God and that it is obvious.

Science claims that math has powerful explanatory power.

God is not an obvious realization. Cause and effect is not dead. And i am totally skeptical about math being explanatory without cause and effect. Science probably isnt absolute truth but people do make it out to be so. Ruling out people's everyday observations of reality as cause and effect sounds dogmatic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some Religions make the claim that by simple observance through reason we can deduce that there is a God and that it is obvious.

Science claims that math has powerful explanatory power.

God is not an obvious realization. Cause and effect is not dead. And i am totally skeptical about math being explanatory without cause and effect. Science probably isnt absolute truth but people do make it out to be so. Ruling out people's everyday observations of reality as cause and effect sounds dogmatic.

You seem to be incorrectly stating what science is. Science is the application of observation, forming hypotheses, and testing them. It is a way of solving problems. All scientific answers are taken as tentatively true. They are not ever dogma. And math is a tool used in the sciences. More than just math is needed for an idea to be scientific in its nature. And even though the sciences have shown that many of the claims in Genesis (pretty much all of them) are wrong that does not refute God. It only means that Genesis should not be read literally. One can embrace both science and a belief in God if one wishes.