The more you know, the more you know you don’t know.
The less you know, the less you know you don’t know.
Religion: I don’t know everything…but my god does!
Psh that guys a hack MY book is better
But God puts thoughts in brain means I know everything!
Yeah I’m not so sure about this haha. I work in academia, and there is quite the abundance of closed mindedness and dogmatism.
I work in academia, and there is quite the abundance of closed mindedness and dogmatism
Are we talking about discrimination against young or foreign academics not getting grants and degrees because of bias about who should be the ones leading research and hesitancy to invest time, money and political capital into new tech, or are we talking about “They didn’t want to read my paper about how I think the sun pooped out the Earth and why this is evidence for God”?
Seriously, that’s a loaded claim, you need to provide some context and nuance there, I haven’t met many actual scientific-minded people who are dogmatic, that is usually the exact accusation thrown out by theists who are butthurt that evolution exists and can’t be disproven.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_science
Read this. I used to favour Popper, but I now quite like Kuhn. Kuhn is based.
My point is that the scientific endeavour according to Kuhn is not an inherently critical one(as it is with Popper, for example). Science is based on dogmas, positions and suppositions that are not questioned within a paradigm.
Also, if something can’t be disproven, it isn’t science.
I am sure you know what I’m saying here, but thank you for the required-by-law pedantry that occurs every time anyone says anything.
Ah ok, so you seem to have misconstrued what I’ve said here and have added in your own assumptions and straw men. That’s ok, it happens to the best of us (myself included).
I’m definitely not trying to equate science with religion in every way. I just think it’s fair to acknowledge that science, being a human endeavor, isn’t immune to things like gatekeeping, resistance to new ideas, or institutional biases. That doesn’t mean science as a whole is bad or anti-progress. We’ve achieved incredible feats with science; we certainly didn’t “pray” our way to the modern automobile, or to the smartphone. All I’m saying is that, like any field, it has its challenges. And those challenges and weaknesses can be more than people or scientists like to imagine. I’m simply pointing out that dogmatism can exist anywhere, even in spaces that pride themselves on being open to new information.
The fact that you’re immediately jumping to extremes of either systemic biases in funding or absurd pseudoscience, kind of proves my point ironically. I’m a researcher at a nationally recognized university, and trust me when I say that there are many like you who seem to get their jimmies all riled up the second that someone so much as mentions that “scientific research may fall victim to dogmatism and other forms of human egoistic thought - just like religion”. It’s a strange phenomenon I’ve observed when people associate their entire identity with their specific scientific endeavors. And I get it too (and to say I don’t fall victim occasionally would be a lie). It is difficult for your ego to let go of 30 years of hard work and research, even when new data / evidence comes out to prove you wrong. It’s not easy to say “yup the research I associated my identity with the last 30 years? That’s actually all wrong”, but a good scientist is one who doesn’t attach ego to their work and remains perfectly objective. Much harder said than done- trust me.
Ah ok, so you seem to have misconstrued what I’ve said here and have added in your own assumptions and straw men.
No I literally just asked you a question which direction you’re coming from, and the fact that you had to respond with this reactionary, defensive BS instead of using the opportunity to distance yourself from the kooks tells me you don’t have good-faith stake in this and my second option is probably true. No way I’m wasting my time reading further or engaging. Have a good one kook. Go ahead and say whatever you want, you’re blocked.
Reminder other readers: science is not dying, science is in a good shape other than US funding, we are making amazing discoveries every day around the world. The academic world isn’t perfect but it’s working. There is no coverup or conspiracy. Whatever sensational BS you guys read on the headlines, it’s not true, I promise, please talk to people who actually work in science and academia before trusting headlines.
I think that’s just the comfortable position for humans. Questioning what you know to be true is hard, and the more fundamental the fact the more uncomfortable it is to doubt. Which is also why religion is so attractive.
Edgy 14yo post
Look at your fucking username before you blabber about edgy 14 yr olds
This isn’t true at all. It all depends on the person. People could fit into:
Religion - I know everything. Religion - I don’t know enough. Science - I know everything. Science - I don’t know enough.
You know, some people even love both religion and science!
I’ve met scientists who say God exists and the universe is billions of years old. Their perspective is definitely a bit different. They see themselves as discoverers of God’s work but their academic work was just as valid as their atheist colleagues. Most often they were the first to criticize their church and continued to believe. Blew my mind.
Yeah, there are also Christian scientists who do lots of research and studies and come to the conclusion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Because they challenge modern science with valid questions that get ignored, they are considered quacks. Like why you can listen to 20 different scientists who are all respected in the field, and get 20 vastly different answers on how old the earth is. You don’t come up with 20 different answers (as though they are truth) by using the scientific method. Which would have to mean at least 19 of them are only guessing.
lol, actually, good science would be on the left side of the image, at least after giving an answer to a question. Good science will actually prove something, then give the answer, then have no reason to continue to find another answer for it (whatever the issue is.) If you are giving a different answer year after year (like say for the age of the earth), then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?
Only thing I’d say about the christian scientists who say the earth is billions of years old, is that they’d have to deny the scriptures of their faith in order to believe that. Seems like an odd thing to do. Either they really believe it and not what their faith (religion) teaches, or they just want acceptance from non Christians.
I guess in the end, if you are on the right side of the image, (in the religious or science realm), maybe you should consider the other sides arguments. Maybe its just that they actually figured out the answer and have no need to continue searching. Maybe they don’t have the answer, maybe they do.
then aren’t you admitting that so far you haven’t known the answer?
That’s the point of science. Humility and requestioning yourself everytime someone gives new input, instead of sticking to some old text that some human wrote and multiple other humans over a long period of time, translated; all using lossy translation techniques.
This mentality is similar to what you will see from many people in places of power (no matter how small), trying to evade criticism using the same social power that they need to be responsible about. Just that in case of religion, one has found a scapegoat, so unassailable that it can be reused indefinitely.
You can see, which approach is more desirable by simply considering the following facet of the result that we have when we have a science majority vs a religion majority…
- In times when religious organisations were in power, those who criticised them were killed and their works destroyed to as much of an extent as possible
- In times when scientific thought was prevalent (scientific organisations don’t get social power owing to their lack of charisma, which stems from the very basic attribute of the modern philosophy of science - that one can be wrong) the religious organisations criticising science are not destroyed until almost extinction, but are allowed to question all results and have the opportunity to aggregate their views.
- You will always see some kind of religion vs another
- You might see “science-ism” vs some other religion
- You will see political orgs (which represent one of the peaks of social power in the current age) vs some politico-religional orgs trying to destroy and silence the other
- You will not see science trying to silence a religion
- You will see businessmen trying to use scientific results as a stepladder to social power. You will also see them fail in the long term, simply due to the nature of science.
Well, religion is based on faith and history (but at a certain point falls back on faith since you aren’t there in the past), and science should be based on empirical evidence. So both realms can’t operate exactly the same, although they can cross over.
Many people do research on many faiths, and their research convinces them that a particular one is correct. They can live the rest of their life believing that particular faith is correct, and stick with it, even if they are open to being proven wrong.
And with science, if you actually prove something true, you do not have to act as though you have not. Now, if you only have a theory, then yes, you should be questioning it until it can be proven. I think modern science has disregarded the scientific method as not required anymore to make claims about what we “know”.
I think modern science has disregarded the scientific method as not required anymore to make claims about what we “know”.
Yeah, that’s one of the pretty big problems I see happening in the current scenario.
People becoming way more hand-wavy about having been proven wrong, which sometimes seems (we can’t know whether it actually is) outright disingenuous.The religion related scenario I painted was probably possible due to how long it lasted. Maybe we will have to wait for this one to last long enough to know whether what it yields is as undesirable or more.
For now, at least I don’t see it going in the same direction as the religion power, simply because it’s not the science people that are holding power, but other politics oriented ones. So if it were to go in an undesirable direction in the far future, it would have to be in some other direction.Yeah, I think both religion and science have taken a back seat to just plain ol’ greed and power.
The science guys will always do science.
Even if the patronages stop.
Even if other’s start killing them for it.
Even if the whole society calls them a heretic.
The quest for truth defines them.
Just don’t mistake them for science bros
Religion is a scam built to take advantage and control the uneducated masses.
Except that many highly educated people are also into religions :(
Childhood indoctrination works wonders to keep you scam going.
The whole life has a purpose and eternal soul thing make people want to believe as well
Plenty of educated religious people are converts. I was raised atheist and converted to Buddhism in my late teens. The same was true of many of the other students in my university’s religious studies department.
The fact is, being religious doesn’t depend on lack of education or childhood indoctrination. People will still be religious in the absence of those things.
Religion is to calm a heart when it has nowhere to turn to.
Problem is the same as with comunism, few in power get greedy.
Many religions are. The ones that focus inward to better yourself are not bothering anyone. When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Edit: The self-righteousness of some atheists is truly hypocritical. Persecution is wrong, whether it’s of an atheist by a religious person, or vice versa. Yet another reason to be disappointed in my fellow man, I guess.
Yeah, I used to think that about Sikhism as well. Then I did some research. Every religion can and has been abused.
Of course it can, just as science has the ability to do the same. Do we brand all scientists as unethical because of Unit 731 or the Nuremberg trials? Ironically, this entire thread is very unscientific in its criticism of the religious.
Right, except religion serves no purpose that a non-religious group can’t do. Do you see why equating religion and science is pretty silly?
The only purpose of religion is to spread. Everything else is just a means to an end. Just take every good aspect of religion and remove the faith and the god from it. It becomes better. Teach people to do stuff because it is right, not because X god says so.
Exactly!!
Buddhism is a religion in the same way that Christianity is a religion. I.e. it’s an abstract concept and not an implementation.
The implementations are invariably the problem. Just look at Myanmar.
There’s a difference between faith and organized religion. I have nothing against the former, but the latter brings only trouble
Buddhism is one of the world’s largest religions and originated 2,500 years ago in India.
Don’t look up events in Myanmar.
When was it the last time a Christian did that? Other than JWs who have stopped knocking on doors like 9 years ago.
Btw, I’ve 100% had Hare Krishna’s and other “better yourself” religions bothering me for money. And christianity is a “better yourself” type of religion, too.
There’s so much wrong with your comment that really, all the downvotes you are getting are totally warranted.
When was the last time a Buddhist knocked on your door and asked you to find Buddha?
Buddhism (and the Hinduism it is rooted in) isn’t intended to accrued disciples as part of an elaborate religiously flavored MLM. It is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
You won’t find one knocking on your door. You knock on their doors, and hope to ingratiate yourself to their superiors by adopting their customs in exchange for status and business relations.
[Buddhism] is intended to justify existing, generational, disparities in wealth, power, and property.
Uh, no, this simply isn’t true. In South Asia, these disparities are instantiated in the hereditary varna system (usually translated as “caste”, though conservative Hindus will object to this), in which the highest social class is the Vedic clergy called the “brahmins”. Brahmin supremacy has been a constant feature of South Asian society going back millennia, and it is still widespread today.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, “Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”
This runs counter to the idea of generational class, which was the general attitude of brahminical society and was how brahmins maintained their power over others.
The Buddha elaborates on this idea in the Vasettha Sutta:
While the differences between these species
are defined by birth,
the differences between humans
are not defined by birth.
Not by hair nor by head,
not by ear nor by eye,
not by mouth nor by nose,
not by lips nor by eyebrow,
not by shoulder nor by neck,
not by belly nor by back,
not by buttocks nor by breast,
not by groin nor by genitals,
not by hands nor by feet,
not by fingers nor by nails,
not by knees nor by thighs,
not by color nor by voice:
none of these are defined by birth
as it is for other species.
In individual human bodies
you can’t find such distinctions.
The distinctions among humans
are spoken of by convention.
This is essentially an early version of social constructionism.
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do, saying that e.g. doing sacrifices makes you a sacrificer, not a brahmin. He ultimately says that only people who are virtuous, detached from pleasures and free from disturbing emotions are really “brahmins”. So, the Buddha actually taught a countercultural criticism of hereditary class.
As the Buddha said in the Vasala Sutta, “Not by birth is one an outcast; not by birth is one a brahman. By deed one becomes an outcast, by deed one becomes a brahman.”
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
The Buddha goes on to criticize the various things that brahmins do
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were it’s original disciples.
Why did the noble Japanese Buddhists boil Portuguese Christians alive? Was this one of those Brahman Deeds?
Because of their afflictive emotions of fear, hatred, and so on, which are the real “enemy” that Buddhists should oppose. Unfortunately, most Buddhists are just ordinary people with no particular control over their disturbing emotions.
Much as Jesus critiqued the Pharasises. And yet modern Christian Dominionists have far more in common with Pharasises - even Roman Pagans - than the fishermen and slaves and prostitutes that were it’s original disciples.
Yes. Unfortunately it’s easier for one person to be exceptional than a whole society. I think religions’ greatest failure has been their neglect of the role that material conditions play in people’s lives. Until we have exceptional material conditions, exceptional people will not be the norm.
They fall into the same category of people that look inward and find themselves as a train or an anime character or some other spirit animal / past life bullshit.
These are all people that need mental help and prescription medication.
That’s where atheists overstep. Why does it matter what someone believes if it has no effect on you? Isn’t that exactly what you criticize the religious of doing?
Right, until they harm someone or themselves by thinking they can fly if they believe hard enough or that they can get into a magical afterlife if they kill enough people. If you are open to that magic thinking then you are open to be manipulated and used.
Or their beliefs turn extremists because religion like cancer or capitalism needs unending growth to fuel its existence. People need to be kept uneducated and gullible enough to buy into the fantasy and to donate more money to make the clergy that will inevitably rape some kids.
These same people are bringing their fantasy into politics and look where that brought America and or the religious war going on.
Way to project. Find me articles on Buddhists harming people because they think they can fly. While I’m waiting, would you like me to provide scientific research that resulted in harm?
You can’t have it both ways. If you want boundaries that protect you from the religious, then you yourself must respect the same boundary.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/sokushinbutsu
This is absolutely self harm that is caused by a mentally disturbed individual that is trying to achieve the nonexistent.
That kind of mental instability can lead to any number of self harm or escalation of hurting others in the name of any god or religion.
Religion needs to be wiped out through education, mental health services and ultimately taxation and banning from all political systems.
I didn’t ask about self harm. I asked about others. Are you afraid you’re going to harm yourself, or that a religious person could harm you? How is an individual’s beliefs your business if they don’t impact you? You sincerely believe that the way to solve religious persecution by some is to persecute all of the religious?
Like every large religion, a significant portion of the followers will ignore any teaching in the right contexts. Christians are about turning the other cheek and loving thy neighbor except for the crusades and witch trials, Islam is the religion of peace except for when it isn’t, and Buddhism has its own exceptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence
As found in other religious traditions, Buddhism has an extensive history of violence dating back to its inception.
These remarks followed the 1973 student-led uprising, as well as the creation of a Thai parliament and the spread of communism in neighboring East Asian countries. The fear of communism shaking the social forms of Thailand felt a very real threat to Kittivuddho, who expressed his nationalist tendencies in his defense of militant actions. He justified his argument by dehumanizing the Communists and leftists that he opposed. In the interview with Caturat he affirmed that this would not be the killing of people, but rather the killing of monsters/devils. He similarly asserted that while killing of people is prohibited and thus de-meritorious in Buddhist teachings, doing so for the “greater good” will garner greater merit than the act of killing will cost.
Other people’s beliefs directly impact me constantly through laws justified by religious doctrine, social pressures, imposing themselves into government offices, and being used to promote lying politicians who claim to be members but never following the teachings while gaining votes for being on the same team.
It has negatively affected me my entire life, even if it isn’t a obvious as racism and misogyny.
100%
So you’re saying that you want separation from religion. Why can’t they have that from you? I agree that religion doesn’t belong in government. What about that justifies extermination of religion?
I didn’t say anything about extrrninating religion, I responded to your comment saying people’s beliefs have no affect on an atheist.
Atheists being against religion is a reaction to the default assumption that everyone is part of a religion. The label atheist only exists as a response to beliefs.
You know everything, apparently.
Religion is “built” by the actions of countless religious people. There is not a single cohesive force shaping its development. Religion has also been used for education, political liberation, charity, and emotional healing. Reality is complex.
As an aside, people who are bothered by my arguments should consider watching Contrapoints’ recent video on conspiracism. The points I am making in this thread are the same points she makes against conspiracy theories.
Atheists like the OP suggest (ironically) that religion is an intentionalist, evil force, but a basic survey of the history of religion easily disproves this type of thinking. Intentionalism and binarism are cankers on the pursuit of truth. Like politics, religion is nuanced; it is not a grand conspiracy, even if there are groups in it who conspire. Atheists would do well to be wary of conspiracism, lest they place their hatred of religion over their pursuit of truth.
Sometimes religion: “it requires faith, therefore we can and should stop learning.”
I get the sentiment, but check out the length of the Taoist cannon, it would challenge even some modern day myth lengths like Marvel super hero comics.
There is also an idea in philosophy of science called “pessimistic meta induction”. Basically the concept is that science is a continually evolving process where we get increasingly accurate understanding about how things work. However since science progresses by falsifying previously held beliefs we can speculate that all of our current scientific theories are technically false.
I often see this sentiment on the internet, but I wonder what definition people who hold this view are using for “religion” to reach this conclusion. I have found that the definitions of “religion” and “faith” in use by people are so varied or vague that they are almost pointless to use. The way I define them, everyone is religious and faith is a necessity.
life presents a dilemma to me: I would like to conclusively know everything about the universe and reality before deciding what choices to make, but I do not have that luxury. I must make decisions daily with what amounts to almost no information. Faith is not an optional part of life. Some people recognize that necessity and others do not. It is merely a question of who and what you place your faith in.
Rather than use the word “religion”, I would be much more interested in asking about people’s worldviews. Wikipedia gives this description: One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical or consistent theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven.
I have boiled this down to two essential questions about the nature of life/existence/reality that can be graphed on a quadrant:
The horizontal axis is the duration of existence. The difference between a worldview with an infinite existence and a worldview with a finite existence is immeasurable. If I believe in an infinite petsonal existence, then my actions have infinite consequences which I must experience the results of. Short of infinite personal existence, I may believe that life/the universe will exist forever, but that I will personally cease to exist when I die. In this case, my actions may still have infinite consequences (for future generations) but I will not personally experience them. A purely finite/temporal worldview would mean that I believe that everything will end in the heat death of the universe or similar life ending event. In this case, it ultimately doesn’t matter what I, or anyone else does in life, everything will end the same way for everyone and all life.
The vertical axis represents the nature of our existence. Is the source of life personal or impersonal? If I believed a completely impersonal worldview, then I would believe that we are essentially just biologically pre-programmed to live our lives based on the DNA that we have been built from and that person hood/personal agency is a construct of the mind with no higher meaning. If I believed in a completely personal worldview, then I would believe that I am created by a personal being that is also interested in a personal relationship with me, and I am created as a reflection of their person hood.
These are foundational questions about the nature of reality that demand an answer. Every choice I make in my life should reflect the answers to these questions. But where are the answers?
In our current society, it seems to be accepted that science and religion are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist. I have observed, especially on the internet, that if I espouse to be religious, then it is assumed that I believe in flying spaghetti monsters and think the earth is flat. I believe that intellectually honest people will find that they are actually in more similar circumstances than they realize. It would be foolish for me to disregard scientific observation and experimentation, but it would be equally foolish for me to disregard the limitations of those observations and experiments:
It is impossible to take a zero-trust approach with science (never trust, always verify). I don’t have access to a Large Hadron Collider to observe the Higgs boson for myself. I don’t have access to the LUX-ZEPLIN to experiment with dark matter. I don’t have access to the LIGO Lab to observe gravitational waves. I trust that these experiments are conducted correctly and that their findings are correct, but by doing so I am placing my faith in the scientists performing the experiments. I do so also knowing that complete objectivity is impossible. I have a personal bias. My own life experience and observations skew the way I see the world. I assume this is the same of other people, scientists included. Even if I had access to all the equipment necessary, and dedicated my entire life to scientific experimentation, I would only be able to conduct a tiny fraction of experiments necessary to explore just a few of the questions about the nature of the universe. At the end of my life, I would likely have more questions about the universe than when I began. Even if I had the time, ability, and equipment necessary to conduct all necessary experiments to explore my questions about the universe, I would be making a fundamental assumption that I am actually able to observe everything. I have no idea if there are other dimensions that I will never be able to observe or experiment with. I simply have to accept by faith that these do or do not exist. Even if I assumed that everything is observable, and I had the capacity to conduct all necessary experiments, I would still have an impossible problem from a practical standpoint: I need to make decisions on a daily basis. I don’t have a lifetime to wait and scientifically determine the nature of the universe before I make a decision about how I want to live my life. I am living it right now. The fundamental truth about the universe matters in the decisions that I have to make right now.This is why faith is a necessity. I look around, and I see that I am just one of over seven billion people on this Earth, and that Earth is just one of eight planets orbiting our Sun, and that our Sun is just one of billions of stars in our Milky Way Galaxy, a galaxy that is so vast, even travelling at the impossible speed of light, would take me thousands of lifetimes to traverse, and that galaxy is just one of possibly trillions of galaxies in what is just the observable universe. One thing is for sure. I am very small, in every sense of the word. To sit here, and read this paragraph again, and then think that I really know-it-all would make me one of the most arrogant beings in the universe. I know very little, and I live by faith.
Trust and Faith are not the same thing. A belief is not the same as a fact. Language is a terrible way to talk about this, which is why science uses math.
While trust and faith aren’t perfect synonyms they are closely related: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/trust
As for math, are you familiar with Gödel’s incompleteness theorems?
This is a good explanation/interview for anyone who is not: https://youtu.be/u3GYrEOoKGk
Religion is an absolute rotting cancer
There are multiple points in human history where science has overestimated itself.
In Abrahamic religions, God is all knowing, not people. Eastern religions are more abstract, some have all knowing deities and some do not.
Science is a process, like running. It has no consciousness.
That’s certainly an oversimplification.
Science has representatives that are susceptible to the flaws in human thinking that are also apparent in religion. The recent pandemic made that very clear.
There is a scientific community that has good and bad players in it. Science doesn’t get to wash itself of human corruption just because it’s a process
Out of concern for how much the “Bible Belt” throws in with Israel’s Zionist bullshit, I did some basic searches on the topic, and the discussion was a bit different than I thought it’d be.
People need a place to belong. For many, they have communities in cities that fit. For rural areas, it’s one thing to say “Stop listening to that televangelist ordering you to deposit your savings”, but you’d need something else to take that place - something to believe in.
That’s where more progressive preachers, people similar to the current pope, are shaming themselves for not stepping up enough, recognizing people’s needs and being genuine voices of compassion; not trying to be the economic “immigrants pay taxes” or scientific “colleges fuel cure research” voice, but the “Be good to your neighbor” voice.
So even though I’m not a believer, I’m at least seeing the way churches can bring communities together rather than leave all one’s connections to Facebook. The important thing is what sort of voice is unifying them - because by god, there’s a million ways to pervert the message of any major religion into one of hate.
