The mission of Science and Nonduality (SAND) is to forge a new paradigm in spirituality, one that is not dictated by religious dogma, but that is rather based on timeless wisdom traditions of the world, informed by cutting-edge science, and grounded in direct experience.
It seems that science is in need of religions’ values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.
Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on science’s trajectory. — Art48
“Unless Biblical literalism is challenged overtly in the Christian church itself, it will, in my opinion, kill the Christian faith.”
― Biblical Literalism: A Gentile Heresy: A Journey into a New Christianity Through the Doorway of Matthew's Gospel
1. The Bible attempts to look 10,000 years into the past, not 13.8 billion. Google to see how Christians calculate the age.Considering the fact that scientists are attempting to look 13,800,000,000 years into the past, I'd say they're functionally the same. — Tzeentch
The latter tricks many into ignoring their symptoms whereas the former contributes to the health of most. — 180 Proof
But it would be an excellent development if ethics did. — Banno
The "trick" is the belief that a placebo "cures" an ailment without active medicinal ingredients (ergo the placebo effect). Ignoring symptoms, however comforting, only allows the untreated ailment to get worse. IME, religion is mostly used as a placebo – consolation – for existential dread as well as cultural and/or historical and/or scientific ignorance (i.e. phobias & bigotries).If religions and spiritualities confer peace of mind to a person, that has some net positive effect on their relationship to their body and thus the functioning of their body/it's health. No tricks, just reason. — Benj96
Yes, Scientism seems to be a vague-but-firm belief system based on modern "real-world" revelations instead of ancient ideal-world myths (handed-down from primitive priests). On this forum, true-believers in Scientism act just like religious faithful when their core beliefs are challenged. For example, instead of philosophical arguments, they may give you book, chapter & verse of a technical tome to serve as the authority for a specific belief, or they may just tell you to read some abstruse text by a presumed expert (secular priest), leaving you educate yourself in The Truth, and out of the vale of willful Ignorance. Does that sound like a bible-thumper to you?For sure. Scientism is definitely a thing. Now, there is a good argument to be made that scientism isn't science, and that science doesn't deal with key aspects religion does, e.g. ontology. But I think there is also a good argument to be made that this is a No True Scottman fallacy given some of the world's most famous scientists write best sellers in the science category that are substantially or even mostly about ontology, the origins and nature of the world, or make explicit claims about morality and moral realism. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". — Gnomon
For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Yes. In retrospect, the irony of my fundamentalist Christian upbringing, is that it rejected the authority of Church & Pope, but accepted the authority of a book compiled & edited by that same organization. Indeed "how odd". For the record, Gnomon does not place credence in the "holy" book of both creeds.This is ambiguous. Who was it took the Catholic bible literally - the anti-catholic fundamentalist? How perverse of them. Or did the anti-catholic fundamentalist think that Catholics think that Catholics do not need a priestly cast to interpret the Bible correctly? Again, how odd.
In any case, when will you be dropping that fundamentalists buttressing so evident in your thinking? — Banno
I was merely pointing-out that there is no authorized compendium of "settled science" to serve as the Bible of Scientism. As you implied, Science, as a dynamic body of knowledge, is not static, but constantly evolving. That's why classical Newtonian Mechanics is no longer The Ultimate Authority on Physics. As soon as a fact reaches consensus, a new fact emerges to cast doubt on it. Ironically, even the Bible of Abrahamic traditions has evolved, both in fact and philosophy over the ages. That's why complex re-interpretations are necessary to harmonize the discordant notes.For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Not sure this is right. Scientism says only physics can answer all questions and that the scientific method is a pathway to truth and understanding how the world works.
Science, on the other hand would say we can make reliable models of the world based on the best information we have available at a given time. But these models are tentative and change as we learn more. There is no scientific method as such, just reliable or unreliable methods of rational or evidential enquiry. — Tom Storm
For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? — Gnomon
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.