If by "nihilism" you mean 'not believing in anything' (i.e. believing all beliefs are false), then I agree with you, Tom. If, however, you mean 'belief in nothing', then I disagree because most people believe – place highest value – in fictions (e.g. gods, demons, ghosts, souls, miracles, horoscopes, ideology, ideals) either in lieu of or more than they believe – place highest value – in demonstrable something (e.g. nature, facts, uncertainty, cognitive biases / limits, other people, death, etc).Nihilism seems moderately rare ... — Tom Storm
.Will Science Eventually Replace Religion?
I don't entirely disagree, but where I live this fills people's time already. There's a veritable cornucopia of lifestyle shit in the west available to fill people's time - writer's festivals, philosophy groups, food festivals, recreation opportunities, etc. Most of it very middle class and aspirational. — Tom Storm
I tend to think this is more apropos -
All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.
- Blaise Pascal.
As true now as it was generations ago. :wink: — Tom Storm
I'm not convinced the rituals and traditions can survive without the "supernatural and spiritual elements" that motivated them in the first place and without which they lose their meaning. — Janus
I live in a small hippie village, and such things are celebrated in entirely new, creative ways. The quality's not always great, but the vitality and enthusiasm is there, and no reliance on long-standing traditions. — Janus
.Will Science Eventually Replace Religion?
The opposite of science is art.
Religion is one form of art.
The science of knowledge vs the art of intuition.
One breaks things down. Reduction. Deduction.
The other puts together. Induction. Often narrative. — HarryHarry
Yes they can. As I described above here, "rituals" does not equal anything supernatural or spiritual. "Ritual" simply focuses on a repeating practice or act that ground the mind. It can be used as a purely health-based practice for better mental health in its basic function. — Christoffer
And this is what I mean, although, in too small communities, such inventions can have a tendency to incorporate newly invented spiritual ideas or become corrupt by a lack of scientific knowledge that is found on larger scale societies. — Christoffer
"Ritual" simply focuses on a repeating practice or act that ground the mind. It can be used as a purely health-based practice for better mental health in its basic function. — Christoffer
Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.
Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical. Hans Reichenbach summarizes the connection: “Observation informs us about the past and the present, reason foretells the future.”
The demand for quantitative prediction places a burden on the scientist. Mathematical theories must be formulated and be precisely tied to empirical measurements. Of course, it would be much easier to construct rational theories to explain nature without empirical validation or to perform experiments and process data without a rigorous theoretical framework. On their own, either process may be difficult and require substantial ingenuity. The theories can involve deep mathematics, and the data may be obtained by amazing technologies and processed by massive computer algorithms. Both contribute to scientific knowledge, indeed, are necessary for knowledge concerning complex systems such as those encountered in biology. However, each on its own does not constitute a scientific theory. In a famous aphorism, Immanuel Kant stated, “Concepts without percepts are blind; percepts without concepts are empty.” — Edward Dougherty
The difficulty with science replacing religion is that it provides no basis for moral judgements, — Wayfarer
The difficulty with science replacing religion is that it provides no basis for moral judgements, it is a quantitative discipline concerned chiefly with measurement and formulating mathemtically-sound hypotheses. — Wayfarer
I've attended Zen groups here in Australia where there was virtually none of that. You commit the fallacy of over-generalizing. — Janus
I was not talking about the mindful ritualization of ordinary activities like eating, drinking and so on, which I don't count as "pomp and ceremony". — Janus
Theosophy is a term used in general to designate the knowledge of God supposed to be obtained by the direct intuition of the Divine essence. In method it differs from theology, which is the knowledge of God obtained by revelation, and from philosophy, which is the knowledge of Divine things acquire by human reasoning. . . . India is the home of all theosophic speculation.
Never heard of the tea ‘ceremony’ or oryoki? — praxis
But nevertheless the general idea stands, which is that there is genuine insight into the domain of the first cause, etc. It is hard to obtain, and few obtain it, but real nonetheless. But as our view of all such matters is indeed so thoroughly jaundiced by the very dogma which our particular forms of religious consciousness have foisted on us, then it is impossible to differentiate that genuine type of insight from its ossified dogmatic remnants. But, as the sage Rumi said, 'there would be no fools gold, were there no gold'. — Wayfarer
That’s an interesting question. According to Wikipedia1, intuition is the ability to acquire knowledge, without recourse to conscious reasoning or needing an explanation. Some philosophers, such as Descartes and Kant, have distinguished between different types of intuition, such as sensory intuition and intellectual intuition. Sensory intuition is based on direct perception of external objects, while intellectual intuition is based on direct apprehension of abstract or metaphysical truths.
One possible way to understand intellectual intuition is as a kind of rational insight that reveals the necessary or essential features of reality. For example, some philosophers might claim that they have an intellectual intuition that torturing a sentient being for fun is wrong2. This would mean that they grasp this moral truth directly and with certainty, without needing any empirical evidence or argument.
However, the veracity of intellectual intuition is not uncontroversial. Some philosophers have challenged the reliability, validity, and explanatory power of intuitions as a source of knowledge. They have raised various skeptical arguments, such as:
The argument from lack of independent calibration: We have no way of checking whether our intuitions are true or false, since we cannot compare them with any other source of evidence2.
The argument from unreliability: Intuitions are prone to error and inconsistency, both within and across individuals2.
The argument from lack of explanatory necessity: Intuitions are not needed to explain our knowledge or justify our beliefs, since we can appeal to other sources of evidence or methods of reasoning2.
The argument from inexplicability of reliability: Intuitions are mysterious and inexplicable, since we have no account of how they are generated or how they track the truth2.
These arguments pose serious challenges for the defenders of intellectual intuition. They would need to show how intuitions can be calibrated, reliable, necessary, and explicable in order to establish their veracity. Alternatively, they might try to undermine the force of these arguments by appealing to self-support or epistemic circularity2. That is, they might argue that intuitions are justified by themselves or by other intuitions, and that this does not undermine their credibility.
Another way to approach the question of the veracity of intellectual intuition is to examine the empirical evidence from psychology and cognitive science. Some researchers have conducted experiments to test how people form and use intuitions in various domains, such as logic, morality, mathematics, physics, and language3. These experiments have revealed some interesting findings, such as:
Intuitions are influenced by various factors, such as culture, education, emotion, motivation, framing, and context3.
Intuitions are often biased, inaccurate, or inconsistent with scientific or logical principles3.
Intuitions can sometimes be improved by training, feedback, or reflection3.
Intuitions can sometimes outperform conscious reasoning or deliberation in complex or uncertain situations3.
These findings suggest that intuitions are not a homogeneous or monolithic phenomenon. Rather, they are diverse and context-dependent cognitive processes that involve both conscious and unconscious elements. They also suggest that intuitions are not infallible or authoritative sources of knowledge. Rather, they are fallible and tentative hypotheses that need to be evaluated and revised in light of further evidence or reasoning.
Therefore, the answer to your question may depend on how you define intellectual intuition and what kind of evidence you consider relevant. There may not be a simple yes or no answer to whether there can be any evidence for the veracity of intellectual intuition. Rather, there may be different types and degrees of evidence that support or challenge different kinds of intuitions in different domains.
Both break things down and put things together.One breaks things down. Reduction. Deduction. AND puts together (Relativity and quantum mechanics describe almost all known phenomena)
The other puts together often fictitious events (ex., worldwide flood, miracles) to produce a grand narrative (ex. Jesus died for our sins) — Art48
Maybe it's a spectrum more than a hard line?The opposite of science is art.
— HarryHarry
No it isn't. — Banno
Theosophy and such new age stuff and religion more widely sought to find the truth, a description of how things are with regard to the relation between god and the universe and everything. in assuming this could be found it methodological tied itself to what is the case. Science will always do a better job of telling us what is the case. — Banno
There is no intersubjectively definitive way to determine whether something is the case regarding the veracity of purportedly pure intellectual insights into the nature of things; — Janus
the answer to your question may depend on how you define intellectual intuition and what kind of evidence you consider relevant
The term vita activa, comprehending all human activities and defined from the viewpoint of the absolute quiet of contemplation, therefore corresponds more closely to the Greek askholia ("un-quiet"), with which Aristotle designated all activity, than to the Greek bios politikos. As early as Aristotle the distinction between quiet and unquiet, between an almost breathless abstention from external physical movement and activity of every kind, is more decisive than the distinction between the political and the theoretical way of life, because it can eventually be found within each of the three ways of life. It is like the distinction between war and peace: just as war takes place for the sake of peace, thus every kind of activity, even the processes of mere thought, must culminate in the absolute quiet of contemplation. Every movement, the movements of body and soul as well as of speech and reason-ing, must cease before truth. Truth, be it the ancient truth of Being or the Christian truth of the living God, can reveal itself only in complete human stillness. — The Human Condition, p. 15
But surely the cultural context is fundamental to that. Our culture does have an agreed basis, and that is scientific method. — Wayfarer
As to intellectual intuition, I take it that a proponent would say that it is possible to directly see metaphysical truth. Kant was one of, if not the, first to deny that possibility, the point being that maybe we can, but we cannot demonstrate empirically, logically or discursively that we can, so it remains a matter of belief. I can't see how that can be denied. I can't see any kind of rational argument against it, but I'm open to hearing one. — Janus
Science will always do a better job of telling us what is the case.
This by way of agreeing that "the issue is bound up with the emphasis on 'belief'"
But what is at stake here is not what is the case. It's what to do.
So to reiterate, science cannot replace religion because science tells us how things are, while if religion has any value it is by way of telling us what to do — Banno
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.