I liked that you had sometimes a different approach, bringing something new.
What I think you meant with religion offering community, is that religion offers a very well known community, that brings people togther for a social purpose and for the organization to have more power. Science has a community, but it is more of a gathering, working for the same purpose thing.
And the last point of religious people not being stupid, i agree. They are not stupid, but they enhance ignorance, in the sense that they lack vision, another persepctive. Thats why atheists keep pointing out that for religion to survive, society needs to keep feeding ignorance.
I'm wondering... you said, "I think you can build communities that are neither religious or scientific" I'm trying to think of a good example? Also, would such a community have any meaning? Could it have any meaning?
Oh, and regarding meaning, I wonder what the meaning of science itself is. I mean, why do we want to learn the truth about the universe? To just make things easier for ourselves through innovation/answers, or?
Causality is a rather metaphysical concept. Science, at least until you are willing to get into some deep philosophical questions, is about measuring patterns in the phenomenal world (see: positivism).
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you arguing that I should have used a different word/the much more cumbersome set of words "patterns in the phenomenal world"? *is confused*
By the way, thanks for responding as promptly as always. I'm glad I at least made one person's neurons fire with my posting of video clip to the internet website we know as YouTube.
I mean that, empirically speaking, causality does not exist. Or at least Hume famously argued that we have no sensory experience of causes. We only see apparent correlations between events (ie, patterns). If you want to talk about the underlying causes of events, you must delve into metaphysics.
Science and literalist religion are completely incompatible, agreed. But I think we can make a distinction between two ways of experiencing the world that do not need to be in conflict, but rather are both necessary for us to be complete human beings: scientific and mythological. I don't mean myth as "lie," but rather as a sense of being part of a larger story (ie, human civilization) with a purpose and direction. Science can provide us with facts, but meaning must come from a shared story.
Now, obviously there can be shared stories that are complete in contradiction with science. But this doesn't need to be the case. As Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." He means religion in the higher, non-literal sense of the term, as in the meaning we can derive about the universe based in scientific fact.
For me, "shared story" is quite the vague term. It can mean: A story that is shared between people (an explanation). A commonly held shared story (culture/subculture). A purpose-giving narrative to life itself (your use of religion?).
Language can be another kind of shared "story", if you think about it as just a cohesive set of things that we understand at a deep enough level to regularly converse with.
So basically, I think I see what you are saying, but I don't think I really agree.
I'm saying that every civilization needs a story in order to exist. So we can never escape mythology if we expect to function as a society as a cohesive whole.
thanks for your video response.
I liked that you had sometimes a different approach, bringing something new.
What I think you meant with religion offering community, is that religion offers a very well known community, that brings people togther for a social purpose and for the organization to have more power. Science has a community, but it is more of a gathering, working for the same purpose thing.
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
And the last point of religious people not being stupid, i agree. They are not stupid, but they enhance ignorance, in the sense that they lack vision, another persepctive. Thats why atheists keep pointing out that for religion to survive, society needs to keep feeding ignorance.
Thanks once again, I appreciate your thoughts :]
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
I'm wondering... you said, "I think you can build communities that are neither religious or scientific" I'm trying to think of a good example? Also, would such a community have any meaning? Could it have any meaning?
Oh, and regarding meaning, I wonder what the meaning of science itself is. I mean, why do we want to learn the truth about the universe? To just make things easier for ourselves through innovation/answers, or?
Hmmm.
JasonOnEarth 3 years ago
Causality is a rather metaphysical concept. Science, at least until you are willing to get into some deep philosophical questions, is about measuring patterns in the phenomenal world (see: positivism).
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you arguing that I should have used a different word/the much more cumbersome set of words "patterns in the phenomenal world"? *is confused*
By the way, thanks for responding as promptly as always. I'm glad I at least made one person's neurons fire with my posting of video clip to the internet website we know as YouTube.
Peace.
renshank 3 years ago
I mean that, empirically speaking, causality does not exist. Or at least Hume famously argued that we have no sensory experience of causes. We only see apparent correlations between events (ie, patterns). If you want to talk about the underlying causes of events, you must delve into metaphysics.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Science and literalist religion are completely incompatible, agreed. But I think we can make a distinction between two ways of experiencing the world that do not need to be in conflict, but rather are both necessary for us to be complete human beings: scientific and mythological. I don't mean myth as "lie," but rather as a sense of being part of a larger story (ie, human civilization) with a purpose and direction. Science can provide us with facts, but meaning must come from a shared story.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Now, obviously there can be shared stories that are complete in contradiction with science. But this doesn't need to be the case. As Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." He means religion in the higher, non-literal sense of the term, as in the meaning we can derive about the universe based in scientific fact.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
For me, "shared story" is quite the vague term. It can mean: A story that is shared between people (an explanation). A commonly held shared story (culture/subculture). A purpose-giving narrative to life itself (your use of religion?).
Language can be another kind of shared "story", if you think about it as just a cohesive set of things that we understand at a deep enough level to regularly converse with.
So basically, I think I see what you are saying, but I don't think I really agree.
renshank 3 years ago
I'm saying that every civilization needs a story in order to exist. So we can never escape mythology if we expect to function as a society as a cohesive whole.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago