Cognitive dissonance: science religion debates

[George-ananda]

For me, 'truth' is conformity with objective reality.

What definition do you use?

The same definition.

Our key difference might be that from my objective analysis of paranormal, psychic and spiritual phenomena, I believe there is more than this physical reality.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I borrow and extend from Sam Harris: "It's 'good' to act in ways that maximize the well being of conscious creatures for as many generations as possible." (WBMG)

I acknowledge that I cannot prove my axiom. I cannot prove that such actions are "good".

You don't need to prove your values. They aren't facts anyway. They can't be right or wrong. They either promote what you prefer or they don't. They either facilitate satisfaction for you or they don't.

 

[blü 2]

The same definition.

Our key difference might be that from my objective analysis of paranormal, psychic and spiritual phenomena, I believe there is more than this physical reality.

Thanks for that.

What test will tell me (as distinct from you) what things are both 'real' and 'more than this physical reality'?

 

[George-ananda]

Thanks for that.

What test will tell me (as distinct from you) what things are both 'real' and 'more than this physical reality'?

If you require a test for everything you believe then that would be 'scientism'. Have at it, if you want.

We do objective reasoning on many things. Without reasoning skills we would be unintelligent creatures. From answers.com:

Objective reasoning is the ability to decide whether or not the information covered is fact, opinion, or propaganda. It is undistorted by emotion or personal bias.

 

[blü 2]

If you require a test for everything you believe then that would be 'scientism'. Have at it, if you want.

If not a test, a usable principle.

Objective reasoning is the ability to decide whether or not the information covered is fact, opinion, or propaganda. It is undistorted by emotion or personal bias.

But 'objective reasoning' won't distinguish true from false without a clear concept, a defined notion, of 'true'.

Otherwise it's opinion rather than reasoning, no?

 

[George-ananda]

If not a test, a usable principle.

But 'objective reasoning' won't distinguish true from false without a clear concept, a defined notion, of 'true'.

Otherwise it's opinion rather than reasoning, no?

We already agreed on the definition of ‘truth’.

 

[blü 2]

We already agreed on the definition of ‘truth’.

Then if we agree truth is conformity with reality, what's your definition of reality?

Chez moi, for a thing to be real it must have objective existence; that is, it must exist independently of the concept of it in any brain.

And reality is the sum of real things.

And we access reality directly, by the physical senses, so that if a thing is real then its reality can in principle be satisfactorily demonstrated.

How do you see it?

 

[George-ananda]

Then if we agree truth is conformity with reality, what's your definition of reality?

Chez moi, for a thing to be real it must have objective existence; that is, it must exist independently of the concept of it in any brain.

And reality is the sum of real things.

And we access reality directly, by the physical senses, so that if a thing is real then its reality can in principle be satisfactorily demonstrated.

How do you see it?

Our difference would be that I do not believe our physical senses and instruments can detect all of reality. In fact conventional science holds that 95% of the matter/energy in the universe is not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments (so-called dark matter).

I see the paranormal evidence supporting the existence of more than a physical plane of reality and our physical senses and instruments incapable of perceiving the all of reality.

I also believe 'gifted' people can sense beyond the physical reality with psychic senses. The evidence of the paranormal and the insights of certain gifted clairvoyants dovetail to form the most reasonable view of the totality of reality is my objectively reasoned conclusion.

 

[icehorse]

You don't need to prove your values. They aren't facts anyway. They can't be right or wrong. They either promote what you prefer or they don't. They either facilitate satisfaction for you or they don't.

When discussing or debating, putting one's values on the table really moves the dialog along. As far as whether values can be right or wrong, I agree from a strict relativist stance, but for practical purposes I think some values can be judged to be "better" than others.

 

[blü 2]

Our difference would be that I do not believe our physical senses and instruments can detect all of reality.

That's because of the following para?

In fact conventional science holds that 95% of the matter/energy in the universe is not directly detectable by our physical senses and instruments (so-called dark matter).

Dark matter is the name of a mystery rather than a thing; but I have $5 for your favorite charity if the mystery is solved by some approach other than the scientific.

I see the paranormal evidence supporting the existence of more than a physical plane of reality and our physical senses and instruments incapable of perceiving the all of reality.

But does it have objective existence? Can others see it too? Do you conduct tests where a joint, preferably novel, phenomenon is experienced and each participant writes up the experience in isolation from others, to see whether it seems more likely that they were witnessing a phenomenon with objective existence, than not?

I also believe 'gifted' people can sense beyond the physical reality with psychic senses.

Yet none of them stepped up and took a million bucks off the Randi Foundation. Isn't that carrying immaterialism too far?

The evidence of the paranormal and the insights of certain gifted clairvoyants dovetail to form the most reasonable view of the totality of reality is my objectively reasoned conclusion.

The clairvoyants didn't score the bucks either, though.

 

[sayak83]

Cognitive dissonance is a really interesting topic to me. It certainly is recognized as an aspect of living in a modern culture. For me if I step out of culture and step into nature the dissonance stops. There is no place in culture that I can find that doesn't generate a sense of cognitive dissonance.
Religion is generally used as a tool to create an intellectual fantasy structure that aliviates the dissonance in a particular way. The doppleganger of that is mirrored in science where it's used as a tool to create an intellectual fantasy structure that aliviates the dissonance in a particular way. The argument that culturally develops between religion and science is a symptom of something going on that's not healthy within the individual and the culture. The shift away from accedemic university religion which Christianity actually is is an interesting shift. The shift is generated by the institution that created the fantasy structures inside Christianity itself. A bit like I will create a reality, I will turn around and deny the validity of the reality I created as being valid with another reality that is valid in context to the old invalid reality I created.

The dissonance of contemporary science and religion is best described as the liers paradox. The Individual holds two points of view that deny it holds two points of view.

The split between science and religion I think bodes ill winds for modernity. My concern is enviromental. I have used this forum as a tool to look at more closely below the destruction what's going on. There is a rather deep separation that may not be resolved till a lot of pain happens. I thought I was done here but I might stick a bit here in this one strange wierd forum science religion. It Seems to be a rather odd dysfunctional unsound cultural duality.

I absolutely love nature, love science and am a strongly spiritual Hindu. Fun aside, I am genuinely curious as to why cognitive dissonance arise in people regarding domains that are for me as seamlessly integrated as the color, the texture and the smell of a rose. It's an important problem for if we had had such an integration, I believe that our efforts at building technology and social systems would be far less discordant and conflict ridden.

 

[Augustus]

Those are interesting, perhaps even philosophical claims. I'd be happy to join you on a thread that asks something like: "How is the UDHR grounded philosophically?"

Philosophically it is easy to ground. We just have to ignore scientific realities in order to do so and come up with myths to replace them.

This is a potential source of cognitive dissonance amongst those who prise themselves on their rationality and are hostile to the irrationality of religions.

 

[idav]

I'm personally conservative but don't feel I have a right to impose my beliefs. What does that mean conservative? But I also happen to think that a couple "sins" in the Bible, it could definitely be wrong about.

 

[Augustus]

Yes admittedly catering to mostly humans is very selfish of me but what's wrong with it, what does science say about species catering to their own?

Animals do look after their self-interests or that of their group.

The way we do so though is often based on myths, such as those enshrined in the UDHR. There's nothing 'wrong' with this, the need for myths is the defining characteristic of our species.

Many modern Rationalists believe they transcended the need for such myths when they rejected 'irrational' religions, yet their worldview is as mythical as any other. This is the potential source of cognitive dissonance I mentioned.

 

[icehorse]

Philosophically it is easy to ground. We just have to ignore scientific realities in order to do so and come up with myths to replace them.

This is a potential source of cognitive dissonance amongst those who prise themselves on their rationality and are hostile to the irrationality of religions.

That's too ambiguous, can you provide some details?

 

[Augustus]

That's too ambiguous, can you provide some details?

Philosophically, you make an argument regarding what you believe is the best way to ensure the kind of world you want to live in.

Nothing scientific suggests there is such a thing as a unified Humanity (a religious notion derived from creation mythology), equality is not something found in nature, a right to life isn't found in nature, etc. etc.

Most of the UDHR is founded on Human Exceptionalism, again a religious notion rather than something scientific.

The dissonance is based on the fact that people who believe they have outgrown myths blind themselves to the myths they replaced the old ones with (especially in regard to their religious origins).

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with myths and they are nothing to be ashamed of. A failure to acknowledge that we all base our worldviews on them is harmful though.

 

[icehorse]

Philosophically, you make an argument regarding what you believe is the best way to ensure the kind of world you want to live in.

Nothing scientific suggests there is such a thing as a unified Humanity (a religious notion derived from creation mythology), equality is not something found in nature, a right to life isn't found in nature, etc. etc.

Most of the UDHR is founded on Human Exceptionalism, again a religious notion rather than something scientific.

The dissonance is based on the fact that people who believe they have outgrown myths blind themselves to the myths they replaced the old ones with (especially in regard to their religious origins).

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with myths and they are nothing to be ashamed of. A failure to acknowledge that we all base our worldviews on them is harmful though.

I think it's a mistake to try to equate something like the UDHR with religious mythology. The UDHR is not adhered to dogmatically. It can evolve as we learn and grow. E.g., as we learn more about the cognitive capabilities of other creatures on the planet we might well amend the UDHR.

Second, the UDHR doesn't really call for a "unified humanity". It makes no attempt to dissolve countries or cultures.

 

[Augustus]

I think it's a mistake to try to equate something like the UDHR with religious mythology. The UDHR is not adhered to dogmatically. It can evolve as we learn and grow. E.g., as we learn more about the cognitive capabilities of other creatures on the planet we might well amend the UDHR.

Religions evolve too...

Anyway, that wasn't really the point, I'm not comparing it to a religion I'm saying both are based around myths (or narratives if you prefer) as all value systems are.

These are where your axioms to reason from are created. When they adapt or evolve is when this narrative changes.

I know you accept that axioms are a necessity, this is really accepting that myths are a necessity (although you may disagree with the terminology and the intellectual evolution of many of the foundational concepts of your ideology).

Second, the UDHR doesn't really call for a "unified humanity". It makes no attempt to dissolve countries or cultures.

I don't mean a one world government, a unified Humanity is one with universal rights based around a concept of our shared Humanity. It developed out of monotheism and is a mythological, rather than scientific, construct.

 

[David T]

I absolutely love nature, love science and am a strongly spiritual Hindu. Fun aside, I am genuinely curious as to why cognitive dissonance arise in people regarding domains that are for me as seamlessly integrated as the color, the texture and the smell of a rose. It's an important problem for if we had had such an integration, I believe that our efforts at building technology and social systems would be far less discordant and conflict ridden.

Well you being a hindu makes a huge difference on this topic. It's probably why western thinkers were drawn to Hinduism over the last couple of centuries. In the west, the world is devoid in the science and religious domains of what is called in Latin Anima mundi, or world spirit. The West has a strong mechanical, intellectualization of nature, a very weak, interpersonalization of nature. We have writers who have bumped into this issue in the west, john Muir is one of my favorites on this issue. "the clearest way to the universe is the trough the wilderness forest". Or "off to the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul". He is a very noted enviromental writer and really the father of our national park system here in the US. I don't get a sense that he is understood very well in religion, in science, in culture, generally speaking. Some feel it but seeing it is more difficult due to the noise. We as a culture have done amazing things like bring the planet to the brink of total enviromental collapse, with virtually no recognition of its spiritual dimension. I have tested it out here with comments Science is 99% responsible for the anthropocene epoch" and that gets a strong fanatical denial by the more scientism types who believe in science as some magic objective truth.

This all is a huge problem that we either resolve or it will be resolved for us. In a sense, all my writings here are exploring that disconnect in one form shape or another.

Literacy is wonderful, it's dangerous at the same time. We don't have a sense of anima mundi and that's dangerous, with literacy playing a major role in the elimination of anima mundi and it being replaced with the intellect. That's fundementally Christianity today, it's dangerous. I think we all need In our own unique traditions be more cognisant of that, and seek ways to overcome that. My path is Christian not by choice by location in time. We all are tlwho we are not by choice but by location. Points in a larger story.

 

[David T]

It seems to me that when conversations get to that level, every participant has to either:

- claim to be a relativist (at which point I bow out )
or
- state the axioms they use as foundations for their philosophical stance.

To me, it mostly boils down to a comparison of (by definition), unprovable axioms.

For example, I borrow and extend from Sam Harris: "It's 'good' to act in ways that maximize the well being of conscious creatures for as many generations as possible." (WBMG)

I acknowledge that I cannot prove my axiom. I cannot prove that such actions are "good".

Yes to the above. And a muse ramble below!! Sorry about that!

I was just contemplating this morning on exactly this topic or how axioms are developed. There is a saying in Christianity, "what would jesus say?" that's a very curious phrase to me. I brings jesus in modernity, and then assumes a lot. It's in those assumptions axioms develop. The axiom in this case is jesus would say what I think jesus would say. The question then becomes either" is the axiom itself false, or are axioms themselves false in totality? I might say axioms have validity or can have validity in extremely narrow confines. But they can never extend beyond superficiality of its confine. Axiom "I throw a rock up, it will fall back down" is a true axiom but the axiom itself does not cause the rock to fall. The rock falls independent of statements. I can't take the axiom "the rock falls, and extend it to a therefore there is no God" and say that the therefore statement is even reasoned. Dawkins does this constantly with genetics as many do with science in general. That's just horrid science to me which seems to be normal theoretical science today.

I might refer back to the original "what would jesus say" and ask "what would jesus do?" that seems more interesting. Now my statement of what he would do has no "real" validity, but it may be valid at the same time!. How can something not be "real" and be true at the same time?. Art dances right here at this locality. . That's a curious truth to me!!!