Thinking of religions and science as world views hides their light and makes them harmful

[Dawnofhope]

I’ll give you an example of the problems, in forum debating. I don’t know how much this is happening in the offline world around us. In forum debating, when people call something that they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” that means that it is not open to question in their minds. Also it stigmatizes anyone who disagrees with it, which might discourages some people from saying what they think. When people identify with a belief system that they label with the name of a religion, then none of those beliefs are open to question in their minds. Also it stigmatizes anyone in that religion who disagrees with those beliefs, again possibly discouraging some people from saying what they think. On all sides people have views that are not open to question, and contrary views are being stigmatized, discouraging some people, possibly most people, from saying honestly what they think.

Thank you for explaining. I'm not sure I properly understand where you are coming from but that's OK.

Science to me is about investigating the truth in the phenomenal world using empirical methodologies. A classic example was establishing evidence that supported a heliocentric worldview and rejected the Ptolemaic perspective. There was apparently a great deal of resistance to this new way of thinking as it challenged established beliefs that had accepted for over a thousand years.

Religion is usually a set of beliefs about supernatural beings or events as opposed to what constitutes scientific beliefs. The usual suspects are the existence of God or gods, or whether or not someone was a prophet or a great spiritual teacher.

Online discussions can often see those who come from a predominantly scientific perspective disparaging those with predominantly religious beliefs or vice verse. Its often a discussion that can be hindered by prejudice and bias on both sides. Both perspectives need to be valued for there to be meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding.

How does that sound?

 

[Jim]

How does that sound?

Do you really want to know? You might not like it. Do you want to know what I think about all of it? If not, which parts of it?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do you really want to know? You might not like it. Do you want to know what I think about all of it? If not, which parts of it?

Its your thread. Share what you're comfortable with. If its really bad, I'll have to make myself another cup of tea to cope...maybe even a strong coffee.

 

[Jim]

Science to me is about investigating the truth in the phenomenal world using empirical methodologies.

A classic example was establishing evidence that supported a heliocentric worldview and rejected the Ptolemaic perspective. There was apparently a great deal of resistance to this new way of thinking as it challenged established beliefs that had accepted for over a thousand years.

That’s an example of the way of thinking about science that I’m denouncing.

Religion is usually a set of beliefs ...

That’s exactly, precisely the way of thinking about religions that I explicitly denounced in the OP.

Online discussions can often see those who come from a predominantly scientific perspective ...

Another example of the way of thinking about science that I’m denouncing.

disparaging those with predominantly religious beliefs ..,

Another example of the way of thinking about religions that I’m denouncing.

Its often a discussion that can be hindered by prejudice and bias on both sides

Agreed. I’m saying that everything that people call “beliefs,” and everything that people call “science,” in forum debates, is a collection of prejudices. I hadn’t thought of it in those terms before, but that makes it crystal clear to me why those debates never go anywhere except in circles.

Both perspectives need to be valued for there to be meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding.

All perspectives. There are more than two. That’s another example of the kind of thinking that I’m denouncing: dividing perspectives into categories of “scientific” and “religious.”

 

[Quintessence]

It looks to me like thinking of religions and science as belief systems and world views hides their light, makes them harmful and destructive, and is contrary to the purposes of the kind of religion and the kind of science that benefit people and society.

I don't understand. Are you saying ideologies are bad? How would thinking of religion/science as belief systems be intrinsically harmful or destructive? I'm just not seeing it, so it would help if you could explain.

 

[Audie]

It looks to me like thinking of religions and science as belief systems and world views hides their light, makes them harmful and destructive, and is contrary to the purposes of the kind of religion and the kind of science that benefit people and society.

world·view
/wərldˈvyo͞o/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: world view

1. a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.

Sorry, but there is no comparison or equivalency. There
is no way for science to be a world view, or religion not to be.

If there is a kind of religion that benefits society rather
than existing as a parasite, we would be happy to hear of it.

 

[Audie]

((I think that one of the reasons for the popularity of that way of thinking about religions and science, as belief systems and world views, is because of how it facilitates drawing lines of alienation between people.

Oh you got that partly right. Religionists love to say
that science is all about paradigms and world views
as if that were somehow true, and, put religion and
science on a level field-except that religion is right
and science is wrong. (whenever, that is, bad
satan led science disagrees with their world view)

 

[Audie]

Anyone who uses the words “science” and “scientific” in forum debating, or uses arguments from what media and faction stories say about reports of research.

What the heck are "media and faction stories"?
I think you just made that up.

 

[Audie]

That's one of the problems, Jim.
A massive % of the whole world won't have a clue about what you mean if you say that.
.

Colour me clueless I dont know what he means.

 

[viole]

It looks to me like thinking of religions and science as belief systems and world views hides their light, makes them harmful and destructive, and is contrary to the purposes of the kind of religion and the kind of science that benefit people and society.

Correct. Creationists call science faith, just because they don’t want to be alone in believing absurdities.

Science is not a belief system. It is actually the exact contrary. I don’t need to believe that the sun is a star, that would be ridiculous. Belief is left for things with zero evidence, like religion, homeopathy, fairies, astrology, etc.

And science is, and should be amoral. And not constrained by any human weaknesses or emotions whatsoever. So, knowledge should not be constrained by the fact that the majority of people is probably not as smart as the scientists.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

Correct. Creationists call science faith, just because they don’t want to be alone in believing absurdities.

Science is not a belief system. It is actually the exact contrary. I don’t need to believe that the sun is a star, that would be ridiculous. Belief is left for things with zero evidence, like religion, homeopathy, fairies, astrology, etc.

And science is, and should be amoral. And not constrained by any human weaknesses or emotions whatsoever. So, knowledge should not be constrained by the fact that the majority of people is probably not as smart as the scientists.

Ciao

- viole

As noted by Feynman, science is a culture of
doubt, religion is a culture of faith.

Faith and belief are pretty much the same thing
where religion is concerned.

To say religion is not a "belief system" is kind of weird.

 

[PureX]

Only, it is not the methodologies themselves that are used to serve the belief systems. Only their names and reputations.

I agree, and often they are being used wrongly in that capacity.

 

[Audie]

I agree, and often they are being used wrongly in that capacity.

The only way that science can be called a belief
system is to use a lot of words wrongly.

 

[oldbadger]

Colour me clueless I dont know what he means.

Have you ever heard of Mrs Malaprops (spelling?) one of Charles Dicken's characters?
She had a habit of quoting proverbs and maxims but getting them wrong. A delightful character resulting in the word 'malapropism' although my spelling might be off.

But the OP's mention of the King being in the altogether is about a King who got duped in to wearing a magic robe which of course did not exist. He attended a festival stark naked and everybody pretended that he looked in wonderful robes, all except an honest kid who called out, 'Hey! The King! He's in the altogether!'

 

[Audie]

Have you ever heard of Mrs Malaprops (spelling?) one of Charles Dicken's characters?
She had a habit of quoting proverbs and maxims but getting them wrong. A delightful character resulting in the word 'malapropism' although my spelling might be off.

But the OP's mention of the King being in the altogether is about a King who got duped in to wearing a magic robe which of course did not exist. He attended a festival stark naked and everybody pretended that he looked in wonderful robes, all except an honest kid who called out, 'Hey! The King! He's in the altogether!'

Well, it was actually the Emperor, but never mind.
I got that part.
Reread for context for what the topic was.

 

[sealchan]

Anyone who thinks of science as saying things that can be used as arguments in a debate. Anyone that calls anything they say in forum debating “science” or “scientific.”

The emperor has no clothes!

For me I do use such language because there already is much hidden light by those that only see one way or the other way between science and religion. First we should acknowledge each community of supporters as having some validity. Then having done so, we can start a dialog between the two and hopefully come to some mutual understanding.

Language always has this problem, of overly simplifying things and reducing them to less that what they are. But what choice do we have given we are unavoidably socially linguistic beings?

 

[sealchan]

That’s an example of the way of thinking about science that I’m denouncing.

That’s exactly, precisely the way of thinking about religions that I explicitly denounced in the OP.

Another example of the way of thinking about science that I’m denouncing.

Another example of the way of thinking about religions that I’m denouncing.

Agreed. I’m saying that everything that people call “beliefs,” and everything that people call “science,” in forum debates, is a collection of prejudices. I hadn’t thought of it in those terms before, but that makes it crystal clear to me why those debates never go anywhere except in circles.

All perspectives. There are more than two. That’s another example of the kind of thinking that I’m denouncing: dividing perspectives into categories of “scientific” and “religious.”

So you are denouncing...analytical thought?!

 

[PureX]

The only way that science can be called a belief
system is to use a lot of words wrongly.

And yet people do it all the time. Hence: "scientism"; a world view based on the belief that the scientific process is the only and absolute source of all knowledge and truth that's available to we humans.

 

[Jim]

So you are denouncing...analytical thought?!

No.

 

[Audie]

And yet people do it all the time. Hence: "scientism"; a world view based on the belief that the scientific process is the only and absolute source of all knowledge and truth that's available to we humans.

Ah yes, the grim chimera of scientism again
raises its phantasmagorical head.

If people "do it all the time", could'st give
one example?