The question is, are some worldviews so out of step with facts that they're doomed to go out of fashion as people gather more and more information? Alternatively, is it a must that worldviews always have to conform to facts? I mean religion these days has the reputation of being out of touch with reality and to that extent undesirable but that doesn't detract from its history as the most popular worldview for over two thousand years now. Isn't this proof that worldviews needn't always be fact-based? — TheMadFool

It was easier to say the universe was created in 7 days in a time where we had no clue how the world came to be.

They need to be facts based insofar that makes them convincing enough for people to belief in, I suppose.

That's why some religious people go through all the trouble of reworking the creation story into intelligent design. That at least has some semblance of being in accordance with scientific findings.

It was easier to say the universe was created in 7 days in a time where we had no clue how the world came to be.

They need to be facts based insofar that makes them convincing enough for people to belief in, I suppose.

That's why some religious people go through all the trouble of reworking the creation story into intelligent design. That at least has some semblance of being in accordance with scientific findings. — ChatteringMonkey

Alternatively, is it a must that worldviews always have to conform to facts? — TheMadFool

So, the answer is a "yes"? Thanks.

No technically the answer is, no.... if only a yes or no answer will do :-). They need to "appear" to conform to facts... not they have to conform to facts.

That's why some religious people go through all the trouble of reworking the creation story into intelligent design — ChatteringMonkey

Why "go through all the trouble" unless it's a pressing concern?

You make it look like humans are devolving into lower and lower states of intelligence. Why do you call scientific truths, "primitive truths"? As far as anyone can tell, science is the new kid on the block and that kid seems to be leading the vanguard in our quest for knowledge. — TheMadFool

I don't mean primitive in a cultural sense I mean it in a physical, abstract sense. Science and mathematics are involved with the most basic primitive truths about the physical world and about abstraction. If society is a passenger liner, scientists are down in the engine room. The distinguished guests are in the upper decks, listening to opera and discussing more evolved things.

It's a pressing concern to 'appear' to conform to the facts, otherwise people won't buy into it anymore. But it doesn't actually have to conform with the facts because generally people also don't care that much about truth that all the details have to be correct.

Religion brings wisdom? Tell that to a young girl being stoned to death for becoming pregnant. :worry: — jgill

You are being a little selective in your portrayal of religion. I'm talking about religion properly understood, in particular mysticism. People need to be intelligent and moral about how they practice religion.

Science vs consciousness? Scientists are not conscious? :roll: — jgill

Some of them are more conscious than so called religious people. I'm talking about consciousness of spiritual reality.

I don't mean primitive in a cultural sense I mean it in a physical, abstract sense. Science and mathematics are involved with the most basic primitive truths about the physical world and about abstraction. If society is a passenger liner, scientists are down in the engine room. The distinguished guests are in the upper decks, listening to opera and discussing more evolved things. — EnPassant

Aah! Makes sense. Would the distinguished guests be keeping an ear out for strange sounds coming from the engine room?

because generally people also don't care that much about truth that all the details have to be correct. — ChatteringMonkey

Alternatively, is it a must that worldviews always have to conform to facts? — TheMadFool

So, the answer is "no".

Aah! Makes sense. Would the distinguished guests be keeping an ear out for strange sounds coming from the engine room? — TheMadFool

Not sure what you mean. What I'm saying is that science is about the nuts and bolts. But there's more to life and being than primitive truths. Of course it is possible for scientists to think in less primitive, reductive ways but I think that a reductive, scientific mind-set, by itself, cannot answer ontological questions convincingly.

Wisdom will never be able to keep up with knowledge. Knowledge grows exponentially, while wisdom grows incrementally at best. Thus, the gap between wisdom and knowledge (ie. power) grows ever wider, ever faster. — Nuke

So far anyhow, that's why we are in the fix we are in. Maybe the future will be better than this.

:up:

Because science is so inextricably bound to the modernizing of medicine and augmenting of recreation, maybe many have a notion that its advancement in general is directly proportional to standard of living. Lurking beneath this assumption is the pernicious manipulation of materialistic categories to obscure introspective or traditionally "spiritual" truths we must acknowledge if social life is to be adequately cohesive, fulfilling, nonnihilistic, conscientiously and effectively activist.

The political corruption of religion that hypocrisized its doctrines swung the pendulum more towards radical sense-perceptual empiricism with its upstart intellectual integrity and away from spiritual solidarity in communities of the West, but this didn't become conquest until the advent of massive medical, surgical and entertainment technology improvements. In the present day, recently won, 20th century scientific authority has become our corruptedly dominant institution of cultural imperialism, with materialism being one of its go to hypocritical doctrines of ideological control. Seems that whenever a paradigm meets with massive success, it inexorably transforms into a huge bane to the population from an engendering of excessive faith.

I think science is undeniably indispensable, but the synergy of power and dogmatizing can always be a problem.

Lurking beneath this assumption is the pernicious manipulation of materialistic categories to obscure introspective or traditionally "spiritual" truths we must acknowledge if social life is to be adequately cohesive, fulfilling, nonnihilistic, conscientiously and effectively activist. — Enrique

Isn't this just another pernicious idea? To find comfort in fiction rather than in facts? Of course one is sometimes pushed to make a difficult choice - enjoy in a fool's paradise or a suffer in a wise man's hell?

The issue at the height of Western political religiosity during the Middle Ages was its fomentation of mob mentality that undermined activist solidarity by instigating irrationality and violence, as in crusades, pogroms, persecutions, rampant superstition, and leadership's promotion of concepts anathema to fact-based, collectivized, common sense objectivity. This could only work for so long since oppressed majorities always hold the true power, and when the situation inevitably became unsettled enough, large-scale upheaval ensued, the Reformation.

The 21st century issue is a compromising of activist solidarity in populations that are being atomized by both financial mechanisms and a consumerist enculturation stimulating citizens to place more value on wealth than either the health of their communities or the cognitive actualizing of individuals via dissemination of accurate information, also a cause of much irrationality and violence. Could we again reach Reformation-level unrest if social participation continues to be foiled?

Even if you don't care about the deconstructive psychologism and only want basic fact, it seems apparent we've got a long-standing problem that might actually be solvable with enough analysis. This could probably be a dissertation, I don't claim to have that level of knowledge, but a perspective worth considering I think.