religious belief hasn't been replaced by scientific certainty; instead, belief as a fundamental component of the human experience has been transferred from the religion of the masses to the scientific beliefs of the masses. — Noble Dust
"Hinduism" as a religion — Noble Dust
Actually the word is derived from 'the people over the River Indus' i.e. Indians. Hinduism is not a religion, it is a plethora of religions and philosophies - theistic, polytheistic, atheistic and everything in between. — Wayfarer
My thoughts are that I agree, up to the 'instead' (I have no time for certainty of any kind) and I disagree with everything after that. — andrewk
I don't think the amount of religious belief or genuine religiosity has changed much. People who want to be religious still are, as they always were. — andrewk
What has changed is that people who don't want to be religious, or who do but don't want to conform to the locally dominant religious dogma, no longer have to pretend to believe it on pain of being ostracised or burnt at the stake. — andrewk
Basically, scientific evidence is "taken on faith" for the average citizen in the West, in the same way that theological conundrums were taken on faith by the average person for centuries. Rather than having ditched religion, the West has transferred the religious need to another sphere of inquiry; or more accurately, to another perspective from which to view "reality". — Noble Dust
Yes, and my response to that is that that's not how science works, and that the text is not something that a thoughtful scientist would say.
I agree with you; I've tried to make similar arguments before. Basically, scientific evidence is "taken on faith" for the average citizen in the West, in the same way that theological conundrums were taken on faith by the average person for centuries.
If you are a scientist, or a priest, or even a mathematician, you still have the same problems. One cannot check everything, and must rely on the community.
Basically, scientific evidence is "taken on faith" for the average citizen in the West, in the same way that theological conundrums were taken on faith by the average person for centuries. Rather than having ditched religion, the West has transferred the religious need to another sphere of inquiry; or more accurately, to another perspective from which to view "reality". — Noble Dust
But then being a creationist does not directly imply being ignorant or stupid. It means you believe in the truth of a community different from the scientific community.
They teach the physical theory and not creationism at schools. How do they explain that? They surely have a criteria. — Meta
There is just too much knowledge. Becoming proficient in a single field is the work of many years. No one sees the machine as a whole anymore. It's impossible. — t0m
I agreeA politician would never say that we are slaves but in fact a lot of us are wage slaves. — Meta
I wouldn't say a lot of physicists are wage slaves, but you're probably right that some are. The reason not many would be is that physics is fun, plus physicists are generally very good at maths, so if they don't like their job they can move into finance, make a load of money very quickly then retire and do whatever they want. Not many physicists do that because, as I said, physics is fun (more fun that finance), but plenty do.Same with the physicist. — Meta
It's not very hierarchical. Power over budgets and people is hierarchical, but real power in science is influence, which tends to be driven by the value of one's discoveries, and that is not very hierarchical. Nor do I think there is an informational monopoly at the top, unless you're referring to the obsession with paper publishing, citation counts and the power of the big journals. If so, I agree that that's a very bad thing (I could rave about it for hours) but I wouldn't call it an information monopoly.The scientific community has an institutional hierarchy with informational monopoly at the top. — Meta
Being forced to pay tax for something doesn't mean that one is forced to believe in it.They also get a lot of tax money from everyone. (We are forced to believe in science.) — Meta
Power over budgets and people is hierarchical, but real power in science is influence, which tends to be driven by the value of one's discoveries, and that is not very hierarchical.
False why? Would you explain? — Meta
The priest could say theres technology and such but did science make people happier? No. Does religion make people happier and morally better? He could claim that. — Meta
There is a cult in my country that has a farm. A police magazine made an article about them a couple of years ago: there were zero crimes committed there in the 20 year history of the farm. Thousands of people go there every year. Thats something. — Meta
Well you have a point. But as I said the evidence of the priest is psychological (like happiness) and not scientifically measurable.
My example with the farm is an observable example of a place with very high moral standards. This place can be argued to be not as good but collectively morally better than other places. — Meta
You did not explain why the analogy is false you just answered the OP. The structure of both claims are the same: somebody asking for faith which will be later verified by (subjective or objective) evidence. — Meta
It is unreasonable to say that the comparison is misleading. — Meta
A religious person would argue that religious metaphysics is completely justified. — Meta
Just because religious claims are more subjective and depend more on psychological factors doesn't mean religion is total bs. — Meta
I think a person's opinion depends heavily on which group has indoctrinated him: scientific or religious. — Meta
On the other hand science is not as exact and objective as one would think. The paradigms of reason and rationality of the enlightenment have completely failed in the context of society. — Meta
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.