Zizek believes atheism is ideological

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is about figuring out what is most likely to be true and what is definitely not true.

For instance, the redundancy of the word "true" (if I understood the general idea behind it correctly), is only possible if we can even reach the point where talking about it makes sense. Don't you agree, that we can't remove the word "true" if we can't even verify that such a concept even exists, it wouldn't make sense.

Science as I see it, is the method by which we can do that. Because it lets us objectively distinguish between true and false statements and ideas.


(Im not sure I 100% understand your question, so if I got it wrong, just let me know. )

If science is done correctly following the method then belief is irrelevant, whatever results are gained from it is what matters, obviously, wrong conclusions can be drawn, it happens a lot in science and it constantly changes as we gain more and more knowledge, that is why I refer to it as a process, what is considered the most likely to be true now, is not necessarily the case in 30 years.

But it is not based on people just believing that something ought to be true and then run with it.

Science is not absolute, it is just the best current explanation based on the data we have.


So science isn't what you just think it is. Science is what can be demonstrated and repeated etc.

You and I could make a science project, where we want to claim that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't mean that it is science or that we even approached it using the correct method.

Now if you reread your post, it is cognitve and in effect meta-cognitive. In short you are argueing for what you think science is and how that makes sense. But that is not objectively true as it is based on how you think.
That is the point. All of the world is not objective and how to make sense of the world is not objective. Now parts of the world are objective, but that, that matters, is subjective.

 

[Nimos]

Now if you reread your post, it is cognitve and in effect meta-cognitive. In short you are argueing for what you think science is and how that makes sense. But that is not objectively true as it is based on how you think.
That is the point. All of the world is not objective and how to make sense of the world is not objective. Now parts of the world are objective, but that, that matters, is subjective.

I don't think I am, science is pretty well-defined, obviously one might disagree with the definition, but that is another discussion I guess.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence.

Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now.

I just put it in my own words.

To me, your objection to what I wrote, is kind of like saying that if I said the purpose of firefighters was to put out fire, then that would be wrong because they also help cats out of trees.

But science is not all of the world, it is a tool used to approach the universe in which we live or what to say. And again, science runs into problems with subjective things.

Is a sunset more beautiful than a sunrise? Science can't answer that question, obviously, we could ask a lot of people and let them vote, but it wouldn't result in truth, rather it would indicate that more people might prefer one over the other, but it doesn't objectively make a sunrise prettier than a sunset.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't think I am, science is pretty well-defined, obviously one might disagree with the definition, but that is another discussion I guess.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence.

Science as a collective institution aims to produce more and more accurate natural explanations of how the natural world works, what its components are, and how the world got to be the way it is now.

I just put it in my own words.

To me, your objection to what I wrote, is kind of like saying that if I said the purpose of firefighters was to put out fire, then that would be wrong because they also help cats out of trees.

But science is not all of the world, it is a tool used to approach the universe in which we live or what to say. And again, science runs into problems with subjective things.

Is a sunset more beautiful than a sunrise? Science can't answer that question, obviously, we could ask a lot of people and let them vote, but it wouldn't result in truth, rather it would indicate that more people might prefer one over the other, but it doesn't objectively make a sunrise prettier than a sunset.

No, science is not that. Since is not even this site which explain natural science: Understanding Science 101 - Understanding Science

Because depending on culture you can have more than natural science or even social science.

Wissenschaft – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

So no, science is not what you think it is. And it gets even weirder in the Nordic countries with human science.

 

[Nimos]

No, science is not that. Since is not even this site which explain natural science: Understanding Science 101 - Understanding Science

Because depending on culture you can have more than natural science or even social science.

Wissenschaft – Wikipedia

de.wikipedia.org

So no, science is not what you think it is. And it gets even weirder in the Nordic countries with human science.

From the first link you provided:

Science is complex and multi-faceted, but the most important characteristics of science are straightforward:

• Science is a way of learning about what is in the natural world, how the natural world works, and how the natural world got to be the way it is. It is not simply a collection of facts; rather it is a path to understanding.
• Science focuses exclusively on the natural world and does not deal with supernatural explanations.
• Although scientists work in many different ways, all science relies on testing ideas by figuring out what expectations are generated by an idea and making observations to find out whether those expectations hold true.
• Accepted scientific ideas are reliable because they have been subjected to rigorous testing. But, as new evidence is acquired and new perspectives emerge, these ideas can be revised.
• Science is a community endeavor. It relies on a system of checks and balances, which helps ensure that science moves in the direction of greater accuracy and understanding. This system is facilitated by diversity within the scientific community, which offers a broad range of perspectives on scientific ideas.

How is this different from what I posted, again explained differently?

So no, science is not what you think it is. And it gets even weirder in the Nordic countries with human science.

Well Im from Denmark so just had the opportunity to read why they do it like they do, which is because they don't really have any other ways to approach text, images etc. as they don't have access to the source anymore. So they use it to try to analyze texts to figure out their meaning, but I don't think anyone can argue against it having a certain degree of speculation attached, no different than when a palaeontologist makes their best guess about certain things about dinosaurs, like what color they were etc.

Dinosaur coloration is generally one of the unknowns in the field of paleontology, as skin pigmentation is nearly always lost during the fossilization process.

But still none of these would be considered 100% truth statements, but rather the best guesses based on whatever they could examine. This is no different than when someone studies religious texts, we can read them, but we can't be 100% certain that those living back then understood them the same way as we do. In fact I would probably make the argument that they didn't.

Yet, we can't expect to know, since it is just a consequence of time, things get lost.

So I also think one would expect that there is a lot more debate on given topics within human science that is not agreed upon, compared to if you can mathematically proof or demonstrate something to be true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From the first link you provided:

Science is complex and multi-faceted, but the most important characteristics of science are straightforward:

• Science is a way of learning about what is in the natural world, how the natural world works, and how the natural world got to be the way it is. It is not simply a collection of facts; rather it is a path to understanding.
• Science focuses exclusively on the natural world and does not deal with supernatural explanations.
• Although scientists work in many different ways, all science relies on testing ideas by figuring out what expectations are generated by an idea and making observations to find out whether those expectations hold true.
• Accepted scientific ideas are reliable because they have been subjected to rigorous testing. But, as new evidence is acquired and new perspectives emerge, these ideas can be revised.
• Science is a community endeavor. It relies on a system of checks and balances, which helps ensure that science moves in the direction of greater accuracy and understanding. This system is facilitated by diversity within the scientific community, which offers a broad range of perspectives on scientific ideas.

...

Okay, Danish texts it is:

Humanistisk videnskabsteori er noget særligt

De sidste par indlæg har på bloggen har handlet om forskningspolitik. Det er et emne, jeg nok skal komme tilbage til, men denne gang vil jeg tage

videnskab.dk

So you in effect claim that you as a cultural choice gets to decide that science is about the natural world.

 

[Nimos]

Okay, Danish texts it is:

Humanistisk videnskabsteori er noget særligt

De sidste par indlæg har på bloggen har handlet om forskningspolitik. Det er et emne, jeg nok skal komme tilbage til, men denne gang vil jeg tage

videnskab.dk

So you in effect claim that you as a cultural choice gets to decide that science is about the natural world.

I don't know what you mean with: "you as a cultural choice"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know what you mean with: "you as a cultural choice"?

You have chosen between different cultural models of what science is to go with one that says only natural science is science. But that is not a fact, your choice is not based on observation and it can't be tested objectively as it is a cultural subjective choice.

Now read the article and only using actual observation and facts, expalin how natural sicence is the only science. You can't!!!

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, faith in one's self can do these things. Faith based on a past proven track record. If you lack faith in yourself, I'd supposed you might be able to successfully substitute faith in something/someone else. However, if the latter be the case, I'd suggest maybe reevaluating some of your life choices.

I won’t recommend you reevaluate your life choices, that would be most presumptive of me; but I can assure you I’m happy enough with mine; not that I haven’t made loads of mistakes, of course.

Faith in oneself is fine as far as it goes, but it only goes so far; after which, it can easily tip over into egotism, which is seldom conducive to serenity.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I mean it. People such as Zizek and (pardon the mention) Jordan Peterson build such fantastic fantasies of otherworldly atheism and atheists that I sometimes would really like to read the books of those tales.

They would probably be lousy, but highly entertaining.

You know, somewhat like "God is Not Dead" or "Left Behind".

Then again, I would have to be exposed to the so-called ethics of those fictions. Never mind then.

So you’re speculating as to what you think Zizek has probably written, without going to the bother of reading him? Right…

 

[Nimos]

You have chosen between different cultural models of what science is to go with one that says only natural science is science. But that is not a fact, your choice is not based on observation and it can't be tested objectively as it is a cultural subjective choice.

Now read the article and only using actual observation and facts, expalin how natural sicence is the only science. You can't!!!

You are a little fast at drawing conclusions about what I say, which is fine .

There are many fields of science, natural science is just one of them, so I got ChatGPT to write me a list of all the major fields of science so I didn't have to copy/paste them all.

All these listed below are what are considered fields of science, and common for all of them is that they deal with the natural world. And I don't believe I have said that science is purely natural science. In fact you wrote this earlier:
Well, here is one for you that you will get even in this forum in effect:
Science is the best way to understand the world!

to which I replied:
Science is the best way to understand the natural world.

It is our only way, we have no other methods to go about at the moment, so the statement is true (if you add "natural"), which I assume anyone who has written it would mean.

Because the supernatural is something a lot of people value. But it is not part of science as also stated in the link you gave me just above:

• Science focuses exclusively on the natural world and does not deal with supernatural explanations.

So I don't think I have said anything wrong here or made any wrong assumptions regarding science.

1. Natural Sciences​

• Physics: Study of matter, energy, and the fundamental forces of nature.
• Chemistry: Study of substances, their properties, reactions, and the formation of new substances.
• Astronomy: Study of celestial objects, space, and the universe as a whole.
• Earth Science: Study of the Earth and its components (includes geology, meteorology, oceanography).

2. Life Sciences (Biological Sciences)​

• Biology: Study of living organisms and life processes.
• Botany: Study of plants.
• Zoology: Study of animals.
• Genetics: Study of heredity and variation in living organisms.
• Microbiology: Study of microorganisms.
• Ecology: Study of ecosystems and interactions between organisms and their environment.
• Marine Biology: Study of ocean ecosystems and marine organisms.
• Biotechnology: Application of biological systems for technological and industrial purposes.

3. Formal Sciences​

• Mathematics: Study of numbers, quantities, structures, and space.
• Statistics: Study of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation.
• Computer Science: Study of computation, algorithms, and information processing.
• Logic: Study of reasoning and argumentation.

4. Social Sciences​

• Psychology: Study of the human mind and behavior.
• Sociology: Study of social behavior, society, and its institutions.
• Anthropology: Study of humans, their ancestors, and related species.
• Economics: Study of the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
• Political Science: Study of government systems, political activity, and political entities.
• Geography: Study of places, the relationships between people and their environments, and the spatial characteristics of Earth's surface.
• Linguistics: Study of language and its structure.

5. Applied Sciences​

• Engineering: Application of scientific and mathematical principles to design, build, and maintain structures, machines, and systems.
• Medicine: Study and practice of diagnosing, treating, and preventing illness.
• Environmental Science: Study of the environment and solutions to environmental problems.
• Agricultural Science: Study of agriculture and the application of scientific methods to farming.

6. Interdisciplinary Sciences​

• Biochemistry: Study of chemical processes within and relating to living organisms.
• Biophysics: Study of the application of physics to biological systems.
• Geophysics: Study of physical processes and properties of the Earth.
• Environmental Chemistry: Study of chemical processes occurring in the environment.
• Astrobiology: Study of the origin, evolution, and potential of life in the universe.

 

[Nakosis]

I won’t recommend you reevaluate your life choices, that would be most presumptive of me; but I can assure you I’m happy enough with mine; not that I haven’t made loads of mistakes, of course.

Faith in oneself is fine as far as it goes, but it only goes so far; after which, it can easily tip over into egotism, which is seldom conducive to serenity.

Egotism is a threat regardless of which path you take.

 

[Madsaac]

Where is the evidence for these atheist free-thinkers? I'm not saying none exist, but William of Ockham, Nicolaus Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, Werner Heisenberg and Georges Lemaitre are just some of the great scientific thinkers who were religious believers.

Yes, no doubt but it might be said that because religion is bound by a certain set of social values, codes, principles, doctrine or rituals, that is is more limiting than atheism.

Or put it another way, does religion narrow your 'thinking'

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

to which I replied:
Science is the best way to understand the natural world.

It is our only way, we have no other methods to go about at the moment, so the statement is true (if you add "natural"), which I assume anyone who has written it would mean.

...

Objective evidence based on observation that the world is natural and that it is the only way to understand the world.
Not what you think. Observation! The same with true. Not what you think. Observation of the referent of true. And the referent of world.

Edit - could you please reread your post and notice where you in effect say that people think sicence is so, therefore it is a fact that science is so. And could you then realize that what you claim science is, is just as God, based on how a given person thinks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I mean it. People such as Zizek and (pardon the mention) Jordan Peterson build such fantastic fantasies of otherworldly atheism and atheists that I sometimes would really like to read the books of those tales.

They would probably be lousy, but highly entertaining.

You know, somewhat like "God is Not Dead" or "Left Behind".

Then again, I would have to be exposed to the so-called ethics of those fictions. Never mind then.

I will offer this to you then, how do you explain the attitude of many atheists who put science as the end-all, be-all, and the obsession with being anti-Christian to the point books that feature atheophobia are frequently on books considered atheist books? Many even try to claim who were self-identified theists are claimed to be atheists by ideological atheism. Yes, I'm aware not all atheists are the same, but as Zizek himself would have seen growing up it can indeed be spun into an ideological worldview (much like how we in America observed the same with Christianity).
And even just "plain Jane" atheism, it's still an ideology that is informing one's worldview. This is inseparable and unavoidable, and we see this manifest in ways such as how we see some Christians not bothering to fix this world because they believe a better one is to come, while many atheist see value in making this world a better place as this world and this life is what we got.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes, no doubt but it might be said that because religion is bound by a certain set of social values, codes, principles, doctrine or rituals, that is is more limiting than atheism.

Or put it another way, does religion narrow your 'thinking'

All sorts of things “might be said”, but speculation without evidence is hardly scientific.

 

[Madsaac]

All sorts of things “might be said”, but speculation without evidence is hardly scientific.

Yes but what are you thoughts on this particular “might be said”

You can still have an opinion with this and many other “might be saids”

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes but what are you thoughts on this particular “might be said”

You can still have an opinion with this and many other “might be saids”

I imagine you can probably guess my opinion on this subject, which is as follows;

I suspect that atheists as a body, though they be liberated from ecclesiastical dogma, are as prone to assumptions and unquestioned axioms as any the rest of us are. Indeed, you don't have to look far for examples of atheists who exhibit an unwavering commitment to their own rigid beliefs, and a refusal to contemplate the possibility that there may be "more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamed of in [their] philosophy."

And I think you do religious people a great disservice, if you assume most have never questioned their own beliefs, and are incapable of independent thought.

 

[Audie]

Most atheists think that atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods. However, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek argues that atheism is actually an ideology that shapes how people see and interact with the world. He says atheism isn't just the opposite of theism: it's a worldview with its own set of beliefs and values. Many atheists do treat atheism as an ideology, with its own beliefs, values, and dogmas. They argue, debate, and defend their beliefs just as fiercely as believers defend theirs. For example, many atheists strongly believe in scientific rationalism as the only way to understand the world. They often dismiss or ridicule any belief in the supernatural as irrational or ignorant. They also often advocate strongly for separation of church and state and oppose religious influence in public life. In this way, their atheism becomes an ideology, a belief system not so different from a religious one. They feel they have the "truth," while believers are deluded or brainwashed. This sense of superiority can lead to aggression towards those they see as inferior or ignorant. Also, some atheists may feel threatened by religious beliefs. They see religion as holding back progress, limiting freedom of thought, and encouraging harmful practices. In their minds, aggressively challenging religious beliefs is a way to promote reason, equality, and social progress. I believe that Zizek might be on to something here and based on how some atheists behave you can't consider their form of atheism has just passive non-belief because they act like ideological foot soldiers - they are activists. What do you guys think?

Awful lot of words over
"I dont believe it"

 

[Audie]

I imagine you can probably guess my opinion on this subject, which is as follows;

I suspect that atheists as a body, though they be liberated from ecclesiastical dogma, are as prone to assumptions and unquestioned axioms as any the rest of us are. Indeed, you don't have to look far for examples of atheists who exhibit an unwavering commitment to their own rigid beliefs, and a refusal to contemplate the possibility that there may be "more things in heaven and earth, than are dreamed of in [their] philosophy."

And I think you do religious people a great disservice, if you assume most have never questioned their own beliefs, and are incapable of independent thought.

If religionists actually questioned their beliefs there'd be a whole lot fewer of them.

 

[Aupmanyav]

All of the world is not objective and how to make sense of the world is not objective.

What we have learnt with relativity and quantum mechanics is objective - hardly ever predictable, but that is the way things are.
No problem with 'Wissenschaft', unless they talk about things against science.
All rubbish and superstition cannot be hidden under the cloak of 'Wissenschaft'. I am sure it does not mean that.

​