• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Please Define "Religion"

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This is another myth (one that serves a narrative purpose).

In light of your definition of myth, labeling my comments as myth tells us little, as different statements or expressions of what you consider myth can range from being completely true to complete fiction, or simply a stated preference, or a combination of all of it.

Science is just a rebranding of experimental natural philosophy.

I can't help see your desire to minimize or downplay the changes that occurred as an example of confirmation bias on your part. Simply waving your hand and tut tutting is not a very strong argument.

Other areas of philosophy didn’t become science as they cannot become science, not because of these nefarious philosophers you keep imagining.

Hardly nefarious, and coloring my position as reflecting that attitude I see as an emotional defense in preserving your biased position.

Seeing it as an improvement on philosophy is to completely miss this point.

The point being to shield, protect, and preserve the status quo in philosophy and by extension religion? To prevent principles and standards that mitigate human error from being applied to philosophy and by extension religion? No, I think I quite get the point. :)

MikeF said:
What is propaganda other that crafting a fictional narrative intertwining truth, half-truths, and lies, with the intent of engaging emotionally to influence or persuade a population towards a specific agenda.
You have just described all ideologies ;)

The next step is to realise that this cannot be fixed, due to the nature of human cognition.

The idea it can is very much a myth: salvation through science.

Are the dominant ideologies of pre-WWII Germany still the prevailing ideologies in Germany today? If you agree they are not, then you certainly agree that ideologies can change.

Perhaps you simply mean that human beings will always be vulnerable to propaganda and it is that vulnerability that will never change. If that is your point, then yes, I would agree that we are not going to fundamentally change human nature. However, with any perceived negative aspect of human nature, we can and do make efforts to mitigate those negative affects. If your point is that we cannot even mitigate perceived negative aspects of human behavior, I would have to strongly disagree.

Last, I see the use of the phrase "salvation through science" as a means of creating a false equivalency between science and religion. Creating such false equivalencies would be another manifestation of confirmation bias in my opinion.
 
In light of your definition of myth, labeling my comments as myth tells us little, as different statements or expressions of what you consider myth can range from being completely true to complete fiction, or simply a stated preference, or a combination of all of it.

I believe I said "broadly true".

Your myth is broadly untrue, but fits the narrative you want to believe is true.

I can't help see your desire to minimize or downplay the changes that occurred as an example of confirmation bias on your part. Simply waving your hand and tut tutting is not a very strong argument.

Serious question, do you actually know the basic history of the emergence of modern science or are you just assuming what I said was wrong?

If you think what I said is false, can you explain to me the process by which modern science emerged and the point at which it stopped being (experimental) natural philosophy, and started being science. Now explain how this wasn't simply a rebranding of the experimental natural philosophy.

Will only take a few sentences.

Hardly nefarious, and coloring my position as reflecting that attitude I see as an emotional defense in preserving your biased position.

Again you are projecting bad faith motivations, ad hominem based on mind-reading isn't illustrative of an attempt at rational dialogue.

You keep arguing that philosophers are acting out of bad faith, they want to prevent rigour in their fields. Science good. Philosophy bad.

Almost all scientists used to be philosophers, and many still are. Your argument is simply a complete misrepresentation of a diverse field.

The point being to shield, protect, and preserve the status quo in philosophy and by extension religion?

I must have corrected you on this half a dozen times in various threads, it seems you have made some very bad assumptions and you refuse to actually acknowledge your error based on your unsurprisingly poor mind-reading abilities.

I'm an atheist. I have never been religious. Can you stop assuming I am trying to attack science, protect religion, "preserve the status quo in philosophy" (whatever that means) and just deal with what I actually say rather than just making up whatever fits your ideological motivations.

To prevent principles and standards that mitigate human error from being applied to philosophy and by extension religion? No, I think I quite get the point. :)

No, because they can't actually be dealt with using scientific methods. That is a simple fact.

Your argument is like saying novelists use words because they want to prevent the rigour of mathematics being applied to their discipline.

Are the dominant ideologies of pre-WWII Germany still the prevailing ideologies in Germany today? If you agree they are not, then you certainly agree that ideologies can change.

Perhaps you simply mean that human beings will always be vulnerable to propaganda and it is that vulnerability that will never change. If that is your point, then yes, I would agree that we are not going to fundamentally change human nature. However, with any perceived negative aspect of human nature, we can and do make efforts to mitigate those negative affects. If your point is that we cannot even mitigate perceived negative aspects of human behavior, I would have to strongly disagree.

Of course ideologies can change, what can't change is human dependence on ideology. You are as dependent on ideology as anyone else in the world.

As i mentioned earlier ideologies are chosen based on cultural traditions, and these are reliant on cultural narratives (myths) that outline what is desirable and what is not.

This is why certain values chosen in some societies and completely different ones favoured in other societies.

Culture is not transmitted and preserved simply by outlining a set of unconnected principle that people agree upon one by one. Beliefs 'cluster' based on identity - for example much of the US right tends to be low tax, anti-abortion, pro-gun and anti-vaccine for Covid, whereas European conservatives are mostly low tax, pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-vaccine.

If all you are saying is "these are our values because they are our values, how would you change values without cultural narratives that underpin the desirability for change?

How would you unite diverse people into a common identity?

How do you convince people to 'irrationally' go against their own interests for the common good?

Last, I see the use of the phrase "salvation through science" as a means of creating a false equivalency between science and religion. Creating such false equivalencies would be another manifestation of confirmation bias in my opinion.

Your bad faith mind reading is confusing you again. The equivalency is between the ideologies/myths, not between "science" and "religion".

The humanist ideology is just a secularised version of the Christian salvation narrative. (it's borrowings from Christianity were even noted by atheists like the Marquis de Condorcet during the Enlightenment, although few today care to study this aspect of the history of ideas)

Humanists are only making the choices because they have been conditioned to hold certain values that have been transmitted via myth.

Why should we not acknowledge this also?
 
@MikeF

You have actually perfectly illustrated my point.

You constructed a narrative to explain my post. A narrative that was entirely fictitious, but seemed real to you.

It wasn't random miscomprehension, but part of a very standard narrative among humanists that 'finds it hard to believe that anyone who thinks honestly and clearly could think differently to himself', and thus resorts to assigning negative motivations to those who disagree. This is a very common pattern, for example noting a perfectly standard, secular academic view of the history of science often ends up being labelled "apologetics" or something of that ilk on RF (and remains "apologetics" no matter how much evidence is presented in support of this position). People don't do this deliberately or consciously, but based on internalised narratives and expectations that derive from these.

This is with something as simple as a forum post, people interpret reality in accordance with their expectations, many of which are not derived from rational empiricism, but from the narratives they create to explain the world. Apply this to the complexity of life in general, and you can begin to understand the necessity and the power of narrative in mediating reality.

Your position seems to be that we can do without these ideological narratives (myths), but this is simply impossible. Our worldview is significantly a linguistic construct, and it impacts our interpretation of nearly all information we are exposed to.

In the grand scheme of things, you and me share very similar worldviews, and even then these relatively small differences cause significant distortions in your perception of my views. We are both products of the same myths of Western societies although with a few relatively minor, but significant, differences.

Think of what the impacts will be for someone with a vastly different worldview (perhaps an Amazonian tribesman, or a San hunter-gatherer), who comes from a completely different mythic tradition. All kinds of concepts that we take for granted would be nonsensical to them, and vice versa.

This is what i mean when I say we cannot move beyond narrative (myth).
 

PureX

Veteran Member
The next step is to realise that this cannot be fixed, due to the nature of human cognition.

The idea it can is very much a myth: salvation through science.
Yes, this myth has becomes quite popular these days. The myth that we can "discover objective reality" through experiential consensus.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I believe I said "broadly true".
Your myth is broadly untrue, but fits the narrative you want to believe is true.

Obviously we disagree as I do not consider my comments as broadly untrue. :)

Serious question, do you actually know the basic history of the emergence of modern science or are you just assuming what I said was wrong?

Yes I am familiar, hence why I think you are wrong. :)

If you think what I said is false, can you explain to me the process by which modern science emerged and the point at which it stopped being (experimental) natural philosophy, and started being science. Now explain how this wasn't simply a rebranding of the experimental natural philosophy.

The change that occurred was not about experimentation, but a realization that the way experimentation was conducted mattered, and that empiricism trumped rationalism. Rapid advances as a result of these realizations resulted in what is now termed The Scientific Revolution.

I reiterate that it is a mistake to characterize such a revolution, such a shift in paradigm as mere rebranding.

Again you are projecting bad faith motivations, ad hominem based on mind-reading isn't illustrative of an attempt at rational dialogue.

You keep arguing that philosophers are acting out of bad faith, they want to prevent rigour in their fields. Science good. Philosophy bad.

Almost all scientists used to be philosophers, and many still are. Your argument is simply a complete misrepresentation of a diverse field.

I must have corrected you on this half a dozen times in various threads, it seems you have made some very bad assumptions and you refuse to actually acknowledge your error based on your unsurprisingly poor mind-reading abilities.

I'm an atheist. I have never been religious. Can you stop assuming I am trying to attack science, protect religion, "preserve the status quo in philosophy" (whatever that means) and just deal with what I actually say rather than just making up whatever fits your ideological motivations.

If someone creates an artificial and unnecessary boundary as to where one can apply the standards and principles of scientific investigation, I can't help but try to understand why.

MikeF said:
To prevent principles and standards that mitigate human error from being applied to philosophy and by extension religion? No, I think I quite get the point. :)
No, because they can't actually be dealt with using scientific methods. That is a simple fact.

Methods are specific to the question at hand. One does not use a microscope to investigate distant galaxies nor use a space telescope to examine single-celled organisms. All that is required is that the methodologies are appropriate to the subject or question at hand and that such methodologies make best efforts to mitigate the potential error of the investigator.

How are these basic standards not appropriate for any question we choose to investigate?

Of course ideologies can change, what can't change is human dependence on ideology. You are as dependent on ideology as anyone else in the world.

As i mentioned earlier ideologies are chosen based on cultural traditions, and these are reliant on cultural narratives (myths) that outline what is desirable and what is not.

This is why certain values chosen in some societies and completely different ones favoured in other societies.

I think we are loosing the meat of the argument here. If ideology, culture, cultural traditions, cultural narratives, myths can all change, then what is the issue with evaluating, challenging, and changing all of the above? Why can we not ween out over time fictions that are held as inerrant and immutable? According to your use of the word myth, myth is not required to be fictitious, so lets get past fictitious myth and move on to non-fictitious myth. (myth as defined by you)

Are you saying none of existing myth can change, or that none of it should change or be set aside? This is still unclear to me.

Culture is not transmitted and preserved simply by outlining a set of unconnected principle that people agree upon one by one. Beliefs 'cluster' based on identity - for example much of the US right tends to be low tax, anti-abortion, pro-gun and anti-vaccine for Covid, whereas European conservatives are mostly low tax, pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-vaccine.

If all you are saying is "these are our values because they are our values, how would you change values without cultural narratives that underpin the desirability for change?

How would you unite diverse people into a common identity?

How do you convince people to 'irrationally' go against their own interests for the common good?

I do not disagree that due to human nature we as individuals identify with those who share a particular value or choice and will naturally see opposing views as antagonistic. And this will always be true. But your stating the requirement for fictional narratives hasn't solved this issue. You mention the American right above, yet whatever concepts are involved to bind and define all Americans as American does not prevent division over other ideas and concepts. This in the eternal problem, accommodating, reconciling, and compromising over different subjective value preferences. Relying on or requiring myth does not solve the problem.

As to convincing people to go against their perceived best interest for the common good would be to convince them that the common good better meets or protects their perceived interests. If enough are convinced then there is sufficient power to institutionalize those beliefs and enforce them.

Your bad faith mind reading is confusing you again. The equivalency is between the ideologies/myths, not between "science" and "religion".

The humanist ideology is just a secularised version of the Christian salvation narrative. (it's borrowings from Christianity were even noted by atheists like the Marquis de Condorcet during the Enlightenment, although few today care to study this aspect of the history of ideas)

Humanists are only making the choices because they have been conditioned to hold certain values that have been transmitted via myth.

Why should we not acknowledge this also?

My whole argument would be exactly this, to acknowledge from whence our ideologies and myths originate, why they originated, how they function in society, evaluate the merits of any values expressed and make determinations about those value choices solely on their affect upon society and make any necessary changes and adjustment. In other words, no ideology or myth should be preserved solely on the grounds of tradition or claims of inerrancy and immutability. We learn to recognize the merits of particular value choices on their own merits and affect upon society and justify the adoption of them on those terms.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Sure the word tradition is also Not found at Jeremiah 5:2 but the people were: swearing falsely, they were swearing to what is false.
First we need a definition of tradition. You've been using "Teaching their own ideas as Scripture".

Now, would you please refer me to scripture that says the behavior described in Jeremiah was being "taught"?
The religious leaders failed lacking to stick to Scripture thus creating man-made traditions/customs to follow.
Still no scriptural support from the Hebrew canon for this ^^. It is an add-on. Please refer me to anything in Tanach where a prophet of God rebukes the leaders for "teaching" false ideas? That would move this conversation forward. Thank you,
 
Yes I am familiar, hence why I think you are wrong. :)

You seem to be familiar with the pop-culture version of "the scientific revolution", the problem is it's not actually what happened.

Ignoring the question of whether or not a "revolution" happened, rather than continuous and gradual evolution, if it did happen it was around the 17th C and happened within a field called "natural philosophy" and remained "natural philosophy" for 200 more years.

People didn't go "hey we've invented this new thing called science and are now scientists not philosophers", while some philosophers said "noooo, we hate rigour and refuse to join you". Science/scientist became the preferred terms in the 19th C, and even in the mid 19th C natural philosophy was used synonymously. Prior to this, science simply meant any disciplinary knowledge, not a specific kind of field based on experiment.

So unless you think the scientific revolution actually happened in the mid-19th C, what you are seeing is a rebranding of a field that had already changed.

There were certainly major changes in natural philosophy when people adopted experimental methods, but "science" was simply a language change that happened centuries later. It is an error to look at history teleologically based on what is now considered true and assume that science replaced natural philosophy in the 17th C.

If someone creates an artificial and unnecessary boundary as to where one can apply the standards and principles of scientific investigation, I can't help but try to understand why.

You could always interpret things in good faith rather than construction your own fictions based on prejudice. You could also just remember the half dozen times I've told you the same thing and you wouldn't have the need to. Alternatively, if you forget, instead of mind-reading you could just ask.

But, hopefully this shows you about how we interpret the world through narrative, and the stories we tell ourselves have a significant impact on the reality we experience. We can't help but give meaning to things and fill in the gaps, and we see often things as we want them to be not as they are.

Also, unless you think there are no limits as to where scientific methodologies can be applied though, the distinction is certainly not unnecessary.

All that is required is that the methodologies are appropriate to the subject or question at hand and that such methodologies make best efforts to mitigate the potential error of the investigator.

People generally don't view a book on art history as "science" no matter how methodologically thorough it is.

If everything can be "science" you are basically reverting to the traditional use of the term, not the post-19th C one on which your argument is dependent.

If anything that involves rational thought about reality is "science", then your argument is basically tautological. Philosophers are "bad" because they refuse to think rationally about reality!

I do not disagree that due to human nature we as individuals identify with those who share a particular value or choice and will naturally see opposing views as antagonistic. And this will always be true. But your stating the requirement for fictional narratives hasn't solved this issue. You mention the American right above, yet whatever concepts are involved to bind and define all Americans as American does not prevent division over other ideas and concepts. This in the eternal problem, accommodating, reconciling, and compromising over different subjective value preferences. Relying on or requiring myth does not solve the problem.

Nothing solves the problem as it is based on fundamental characteristics of our cognition and genetics.

How do you think replacing fictitious myths with 'not true' ideologies makes any progress in this regard?

Along with the Michael Oakeshott quote from before, the other quote that best explains humanism is from John Maynard Keynes:

"Bertie [Bertrand Russell] sustained simultaneously a pair of opinions ludicrously incompatible. He held that human affairs are carried on in a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since all we had to do was carry them on rationally."

As to convincing people to go against their perceived best interest for the common good would be to convince them that the common good better meets or protects their perceived interests. If enough are convinced then there is sufficient power to institutionalize those beliefs and enforce them.

Ideology is how you explain to yourself how the world works and the way it should be, and how you try to persuade others that you self-interested and subjective preferences are in fact altruistic and universal.

We persuade others best when we pretend that this is not the case, self-deception is hardwired into us for this reason.

My whole argument would be exactly this, to acknowledge from whence our ideologies and myths originate, why they originated, how they function in society, evaluate the merits of any values expressed and make determinations about those value choices solely on their affect upon society and make any necessary changes and adjustment. In other words, no ideology or myth should be preserved solely on the grounds of tradition or claims of inerrancy and immutability. We learn to recognize the merits of particular value choices on their own merits and affect upon society and justify the adoption of them on those terms.

From where do you think your ideology and worldview originate?

As for establishing 'merit', you can't step outside of your frames of reference. Many of your moral axioms are the direct or indirect product of myth (in the fictitious sense of the term). The merits of any system are judged by these moral axioms. Humans are value pluralist, which means a range of value systems can emerge from our genetic makeup and environment, but there is no objective way to say one is better than the other as all are equally 'natural'.

Your 'progress' is basically moving from "I believe in XYZ because it is god's will" to "I beleive in XYZ because my ancestors thought it was god's will and even though I don't believe in god any more, I quite like their value system so am just going to pretend I arrived at it myself and it is now rational".

Very few ideologies are unchanging and immutable anyway, even those that nominally claim to be unchanging and immutable.
 
Yes, this myth has becomes quite popular these days. The myth that we can "discover objective reality" through experiential consensus.

Along with the myth that increasing scientific progress will be mirrored by increasing moral progress. That "science and reason" are somehow inherently humanistic, rather than value neutral and thus can just as easily be used to support repressive ideologies as they can humanistic ones.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Along with the myth that increasing scientific progress will be mirrored by increasing moral progress. That "science and reason" are somehow inherently humanistic, rather than value neutral and thus can just as easily be used to support repressive ideologies as they can humanistic ones.

Oh, I hate that one. If we just could find a way to measure good and bad using science. Well, it is there, but it won't work in practice. Just define say harm as X and then ignore people who report harm as non-X.
 
Oh, I hate that one. If we just could find a way to measure good and bad using science. Well, it is there, but it won't work in practice. Just define say harm as X and then ignore people who report harm as non-X.

When people propose "scientific morality" they generally just make up their own values/axioms, then claim using scientific methods to help achieve these completely subjective axioms is equal to a scientific morality o_O
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Along with the myth that increasing scientific progress will be mirrored by increasing moral progress. That "science and reason" are somehow inherently humanistic, rather than value neutral and thus can just as easily be used to support repressive ideologies as they can humanistic ones.
I am honestly worried by the fact that as science increases our functional effectiveness in the world, it is being used to disparage philosophy, art, and religion, which we need to increase our ethical effectiveness in the world.

We keep getting smarter, but no wiser. And in the end that can only lead to disaster. Even now we watch ourselves destroying the only place where we can survive, and yet we cannot find the ethical will to stop it.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
When people propose "scientific morality" they generally just make up their own values/axioms, then claim using scientific methods to help achieve these completely subjective axioms is equal to a scientific morality o_O

My story short. I am a grunt, in that all me life I have done jobs for which I had to fix it for a very narrow responsibility, namely I had to do it.
But I was also trained to do ressources as for what works (science), the law (morality) and account for the individual (psychology) and then balance all 3 for a very narrow context. So I can spot problems in how to deal with all 3 for me and another human or more, for which I am supposed to fix it. But that means that sometimes, I can't, because it is not within my training or the resources are not there.
I am a <beep> realist for "fix it" for which someone give me a piece of a **** plan and then demand that it had to work yesterday.
And some of my humor is beyond dark in dealing with that as a former professional soldier including that I am trained as a medic.

So I am not always nice when we play *UBAR for the plan to end all plans as just use science as objective reason, logic and evidence.
 
I am honestly worried by the fact that as science increases our functional effectiveness in the world, it is being used to disparage philosophy, art, and religion, which we need to increase our ethical effectiveness in the world.

I might be wrong, but the kind of naive scientism, where science is the only answer to pretty much everything, and major problems are the result of "not being scientific enough" seems to be on the decline. My guess is that it is mostly a Gen X thing, and the kind of person who was inclined to scientism in the 80s and 90s, would now be more inclined to a newer salvation narrative: tech-utopianism.

The idea that "Enlightenment values" will save the day was far more tenable in the 90s when many Rationalists assumed better education and increased living standards globally would create a world full of secular humanists. This myth of universalism is far less tenable these days, although many among the old guard haven't got the heart to accept it yet.

We keep getting smarter, but no wiser. And in the end that can only lead to disaster. Even now we watch ourselves destroying the only place where we can survive, and yet we cannot find the ethical will to stop it.

Yes, scientific and technological advances have brought many benefits, but at the cost of living in a much more fragile world.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You seem to be familiar with the pop-culture version of "the scientific revolution", the problem is it's not actually what happened.
Ignoring the question of whether or not a "revolution" happened, rather than continuous and gradual evolution, if it did happen it was around the 17th C and happened within a field called "natural philosophy" and remained "natural philosophy" for 200 more years.
People didn't go "hey we've invented this new thing called science and are now scientists not philosophers", while some philosophers said "noooo, we hate rigour and refuse to join you". Science/scientist became the preferred terms in the 19th C, and even in the mid 19th C natural philosophy was used synonymously. Prior to this, science simply meant any disciplinary knowledge, not a specific kind of field based on experiment.
So unless you think the scientific revolution actually happened in the mid-19th C, what you are seeing is a rebranding of a field that had already changed.
There were certainly major changes in natural philosophy when people adopted experimental methods, but "science" was simply a language change that happened centuries later. It is an error to look at history teleologically based on what is now considered true and assume that science replaced natural philosophy in the 17th C.

The revolution most certainly began in the 17th century. That you think the changes that began at this point were simply changes in experimental methods leads me to believe that you do not full appreciate the changes that were occurring.

I also think it is unreasonable for you to expect those who were instrumental at the beginning of this revolutionary period, such as Francis Bacon or Thomas Hobbes for example, to recognize the revolutionary nature of what was occurring and be able to label it as such at that time. There needs to be a track record developed before anyone can truly declare a revolution has occurred and it is more than appropriate for us to look back through history and recognize the significance of particular time spans in history. Did those at the start of the Iron Age recognize it as such, and as having left the Bronze Age? I don't think so.

This is from a link Mikkel provided in post# 289:
Paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions — a view of science, associated with philosopher Thomas Kuhn, which suggests that the history of science can be divided up into times of normal science (when scientists add to, elaborate on, and work with a central, accepted scientific theory) and briefer periods of revolutionary science. Kuhn asserted that during times of revolutionary science, anomalies refuting the accepted theory have built up to such a point that the old theory is broken down and a new one is built to take its place in a so-called “paradigm shift.”

What I suggest to you is that it took 200 years to accumulate enough anomalies or dissonance between the changes occurring in Natural Philosophy as compared to the rest of Philosophy that a paradigm shift was required, an acknowledgement that what has become Science has moved beyond what was Philosophy and a name change is part of that acknowledgement. Given that we both agree on how hard it is to change culture, I think 200 years is pretty reasonable, especially in light of the impact this revolution was having on other aspects of culture, namely religion.

If you think I am overstating this, look at this from the Wiki page on Thomas Hobbes:
The king was important in protecting Hobbes when, in 1666, the House of Commons introduced a bill against atheism and profaneness. That same year, on 17 October 1666, it was ordered that the committee to which the bill was referred "should be empowered to receive information touching such books as tend to atheism, blasphemy and profaneness... in particular... the book of Mr. Hobbes called the Leviathan." Hobbes was terrified at the prospect of being labelled a heretic, and proceeded to burn some of his compromising papers.

You could always interpret things in good faith rather than construction your own fictions based on prejudice. You could also just remember the half dozen times I've told you the same thing and you wouldn't have the need to. Alternatively, if you forget, instead of mind-reading you could just ask.
But, hopefully this shows you about how we interpret the world through narrative, and the stories we tell ourselves have a significant impact on the reality we experience. We can't help but give meaning to things and fill in the gaps, and we see often things as we want them to be not as they are.
Also, unless you think there are no limits as to where scientific methodologies can be applied though, the distinction is certainly not unnecessary.
People generally don't view a book on art history as "science" no matter how methodologically thorough it is.
If everything can be "science" you are basically reverting to the traditional use of the term, not the post-19th C one on which your argument is dependent.
If anything that involves rational thought about reality is "science", then your argument is basically tautological. Philosophers are "bad" because they refuse to think rationally about reality!

This last sentence of yours above highlights the fundamental misunderstanding between us. I specifically do not say that science is simply anything that involves rational thought about reality, because part of the problem is knowing when we are actually talking about reality and when we have strayed. Science, or a scientific approach, is much more than being rational. We can speak rationally and logically about unreal or impossible things. We are engaging in science when we acknowledge and accept that human beings, those asking the questions and seeking answers, are imperfect and fallible and as a consequence those imperfections and fallibilities must be mitigated to the greatest extent possible if we are to have confidence in the conclusion are drawn. This is the core of what Science is. Bias and irrationality are simply manifestations of our imperfection and fallibility that must be mitigated.

My issue with much of philosophy is a persistent belief that reason and intuition are more than sufficient to finding answers to questions about real things, things outside of a purely man-made abstract system that do not speak to or correlate with reality.

From where do you think your ideology and worldview originate?

My personal ideologies and worldview are the product of my experiences, the culture in which I live, and my thoughts about those experiences. Where all the cacophony of ideologies that I have been exposed to originate varies greatly. Does it matter how or where they originated if I am synthesizing all these ideologies, comparing and contrasting, rejecting some and modifying others? Can a value such as saying it is wrong to murder only be accepted if that value is derived from an anthropomorphic deity that was imagined thousands of years ago? I would disagree.

As for establishing 'merit', you can't step outside of your frames of reference. Many of your moral axioms are the direct or indirect product of myth (in the fictitious sense of the term). The merits of any system are judged by these moral axioms. Humans are value pluralist, which means a range of value systems can emerge from our genetic makeup and environment, but there is no objective way to say one is better than the other as all are equally 'natural'.

They are all equally natural as there is no external universal ethic or moral source.

I disagree that there is no objective way to evaluate and discern between different value systems, or even individual values, for we have been experimenting through trial and error for millennia. We have data to compare and contrast the effects of different ethical positions and ethical requirements and make preference choices based on that objective data. But beyond that, by actively exploring how and why human beings are the way they are, understanding the roles of instinct and socialization on behavior and value choices, it provides the information necessary to apply our reason and not simply surrender to reflexive instinctual responses to the external world.

We may begin in a particular reference frame, but that does not mean we are trapped in it. Nothing would ever change if that were the case.

Your 'progress' is basically moving from "I believe in XYZ because it is god's will" to "I beleive in XYZ because my ancestors thought it was god's will and even though I don't believe in god any more, I quite like their value system so am just going to pretend I arrived at it myself and it is now rational".

I don't get this. Why do I have to pretend that I arrived at a particular value system myself? Why can I not simply acknowledge various value systems and their historical development and evolution, observe the effect they have or have had over time and then make choices based on that information. All we are doing, really, is developing group management systems. How to manage the interactions of many individuals, all with their own and potentially competing subjective needs and wants. Must we be bound to management systems developed 2,000 or more years ago, or can we move on and make improvements?

Very few ideologies are unchanging and immutable anyway, even those that nominally claim to be unchanging and immutable.

And thank God for that, right? :)
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
@MikeF
You have actually perfectly illustrated my point.
You constructed a narrative to explain my post. A narrative that was entirely fictitious, but seemed real to you.
It wasn't random miscomprehension, but part of a very standard narrative among humanists that 'finds it hard to believe that anyone who thinks honestly and clearly could think differently to himself', and thus resorts to assigning negative motivations to those who disagree. This is a very common pattern, for example noting a perfectly standard, secular academic view of the history of science often ends up being labelled "apologetics" or something of that ilk on RF (and remains "apologetics" no matter how much evidence is presented in support of this position). People don't do this deliberately or consciously, but based on internalised narratives and expectations that derive from these.
This is with something as simple as a forum post, people interpret reality in accordance with their expectations, many of which are not derived from rational empiricism, but from the narratives they create to explain the world. Apply this to the complexity of life in general, and you can begin to understand the necessity and the power of narrative in mediating reality.
Your position seems to be that we can do without these ideological narratives (myths), but this is simply impossible. Our worldview is significantly a linguistic construct, and it impacts our interpretation of nearly all information we are exposed to.
In the grand scheme of things, you and me share very similar worldviews, and even then these relatively small differences cause significant distortions in your perception of my views. We are both products of the same myths of Western societies although with a few relatively minor, but significant, differences.
Think of what the impacts will be for someone with a vastly different worldview (perhaps an Amazonian tribesman, or a San hunter-gatherer), who comes from a completely different mythic tradition. All kinds of concepts that we take for granted would be nonsensical to them, and vice versa.
This is what i mean when I say we cannot move beyond narrative (myth).

I like to think my views are formed not only on how you might self-identify, but also upon the arguments you make, the values you express, what concerns you express, as well as the source material and reference material you present which then requires an exploration of those individuals values and concerns to better understand the context of their position as well. I fully agree that within the limitations of this online format, we can do no more than create caricatures of each other out of the limited amount of information that is conveyed. I also fully agree that we both will have our own specific value choices that are important to us as well as other sources of bias that will influence how we sort, rate, and rank the information presented in a discussion. This is why it is important to not only understand what you are saying, but also why you are saying it.

I would characterize my comments about the why of some of you positions as being hypotheses, and not as definitive explanations of the why. These hypotheses will continue to be tested and explored in this conversation and any future conversations. I also think it is useful for the discussion for me to share my hypotheses on the why so that it may be more directly addressed and brought into the discussion.

I am curious as to whether you consider me a Secular Humanist (whatever that may mean to you), and whether I am of those who "finds it hard to believe that anyone who thinks honestly and clearly could think differently to himself." Given the inherent deficits you ascribe to Secular Humanists, is it safe to assume you do not see yourself as one? What label would you apply to yourself?

One of the main road blocks to fruitful progress in this discussion, to my mind, is we really do not have consensus on the words we are using, such as for the word 'myth'. I fully appreciate the broad leeway that should be allowed for words in common usage. Creative expression employs a broad array of figures of speech. However, in a more technical discussion, I see clear and precise definitions as a necessary requirement for a constructive discussion. We don't have that in ours. I haven't pressed the issue from my end, but have felt resistance on coming to common agreement on the terms we are using. For me, that sparks the question "Why?". Why do I perceive resistance on this?

There are lots of things upon which we share common ground, and by your comments I think you agree. This conversation needs agreement on some starting points, namely definitions, and if we can't then there is a 'why' to be explored.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
When people propose "scientific morality" they generally just make up their own values/axioms, then claim using scientific methods to help achieve these completely subjective axioms is equal to a scientific morality o_O

All ethical/moral values have just been made up by somebody. Your are not suggesting otherwise, I hope.

The only reason to have or express ethical/moral values is to regulate and manage the behavior of 2 or more individuals that interact with each other. If one is alone on a deserted island, then there is no need for ethics or morals. The ethics governing a group are either adopted by mutual agreement of all, or determined by one or more and imposed on the whole.

I would think a scientific approach to the issue would fully appreciate that ethics are made up and would also appreciate that a subjective value can't be an axiom.

Since the problem at hand is managing human behavior, I would think a thorough understanding of human behavior and all the factors that influence it would be prerequisite to tackling this problem, right?
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I might be wrong, but the kind of naive scientism, where science is the only answer to pretty much everything, and major problems are the result of "not being scientific enough" seems to be on the decline. My guess is that it is mostly a Gen X thing, and the kind of person who was inclined to scientism in the 80s and 90s, would now be more inclined to a newer salvation narrative: tech-utopianism.

The idea that "Enlightenment values" will save the day was far more tenable in the 90s when many Rationalists assumed better education and increased living standards globally would create a world full of secular humanists. This myth of universalism is far less tenable these days, although many among the old guard haven't got the heart to accept it yet.

I'd be very interested to learn the details of your salvation narrative.

Yes, scientific and technological advances have brought many benefits, but at the cost of living in a much more fragile world.

This idea of a fragile world seems somewhat relative. Human life seemed to be much more fragile before modern medicine, with low life expectancy and high infant mortality rates.

I'm not sure what you are advocating here. Is it your recommendation that we roll back the use of technology, and to what level? Is technology really the issue or simply human behavior? What is your recommendation to make the world less fragile?
 
The revolution most certainly began in the 17th century. That you think the changes that began at this point were simply changes in experimental methods leads me to believe that you do not full appreciate the changes that were occurring.

I also think it is unreasonable for you to expect those who were instrumental at the beginning of this revolutionary period, such as Francis Bacon or Thomas Hobbes for example, to recognize the revolutionary nature of what was occurring and be able to label it as such at that time. There needs to be a track record developed before anyone can truly declare a revolution has occurred and it is more than appropriate for us to look back through history and recognize the significance of particular time spans in history. Did those at the start of the Iron Age recognize it as such, and as having left the Bronze Age? I don't think so.

For me, your view us very teleological and thus anachronistic. You are reading too much of the modern end result into the historical process.

In the 19th C, the sciences started to become far more fragmented and specialised based on institutional changes and practical applications.

This also distanced other forms of philosophy from what is now science. This process was not, as you seem to think, caused by "good" scientists who liked rigour and sound method, and "bad" philosophers who wanted to avoid this because it would diminish their power. It was because of a process of specialisation and fragmentation whereby the disciplines that could be studied scientifically became "science" and those that generally could not (ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, etc.), remained philosophy.

Your argument seems to rest on the fallacy that everything can be studied using scientific methods, and the only reason you would not is due to some kind or cognitive, ethical or egotistical failing.

What I suggest to you is that it took 200 years to accumulate enough anomalies or dissonance between the changes occurring in Natural Philosophy as compared to the rest of Philosophy that a paradigm shift was required, an acknowledgement that what has become Science has moved beyond what was Philosophy and a name change is part of that acknowledgement. Given that we both agree on how hard it is to change culture, I think 200 years is pretty reasonable, especially in light of the impact this revolution was having on other aspects of culture, namely religion.

Ironically, you are here using philosophy to make your point.

My personal ideologies and worldview are the product of my experiences, the culture in which I live, and my thoughts about those experiences. Where all the cacophony of ideologies that I have been exposed to originate varies greatly. Does it matter how or where they originated if I am synthesizing all these ideologies, comparing and contrasting, rejecting some and modifying others? Can a value such as saying it is wrong to murder only be accepted if that value is derived from an anthropomorphic deity that was imagined thousands of years ago? I would disagree.

I never said myths rely on gods, my point was that synthesising and modifying myths doesn't stop them being myths.

I disagree that there is no objective way to evaluate and discern between different value systems, or even individual values, for we have been experimenting through trial and error for millennia. We have data to compare and contrast the effects of different ethical positions and ethical requirements and make preference choices based on that objective data. But beyond that, by actively exploring how and why human beings are the way they are, understanding the roles of instinct and socialization on behavior and value choices, it provides the information necessary to apply our reason and not simply surrender to reflexive instinctual responses to the external world.

With values systems though we experience them as being true, not as being purely subjective personal choice (at least with the most important principles).

If I like cheese and you don't, I see that as subjective preference. I don't see myself as being right and you as wrong. If I later get sick of eating cheese, I don't see myself as previously being wrong to like it. Preferences change.

On the other hand, if you think imperialism is wrong and I think it is good, you see me as being wrong. If I later change my mind and start to think imperialism is indeed wrong, I will see my former views as being wrong, not just a change in preference.

I don't get this. Why do I have to pretend that I arrived at a particular value system myself? Why can I not simply acknowledge various value systems and their historical development and evolution, observe the effect they have or have had over time and then make choices based on that information. All we are doing, really, is developing group management systems. How to manage the interactions of many individuals, all with their own and potentially competing subjective needs and wants. Must we be bound to management systems developed 2,000 or more years ago, or can we move on and make improvements?

Again, we can make up whatever values system we want whenever we want. The point is it is conceived, taught and maintained via narrative that is not objectively true (i.e. what I would call myth).

Like the example I gave before:

BLM protest: "Bloody riots illustrative of vacuous online culture and national decline promoted by people who hate America" or "an inspiring and overwhelmingly peaceful grassroots movement that heralds a brave new era of social justice and unity".

Both are broadly true, yet completely incompatible because of the ideologies driving each sides perception.

Both sides now have a powerful, and broadly true, myth that they tell and retell, a broadly true myth which they can use to interpret all kinds of other events which in themselves become mythologised.

And thank God for that, right? :)

Adaptation to environment is indeed essential, as is some degree of resistance to change.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
For me, your view us very teleological and thus anachronistic. You are reading too much of the modern end result into the historical process.

In the 19th C, the sciences started to become far more fragmented and specialised based on institutional changes and practical applications.

This also distanced other forms of philosophy from what is now science. This process was not, as you seem to think, caused by "good" scientists who liked rigour and sound method, and "bad" philosophers who wanted to avoid this because it would diminish their power. It was because of a process of specialisation and fragmentation whereby the disciplines that could be studied scientifically became "science" and those that generally could not (ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, etc.), remained philosophy.

Your argument seems to rest on the fallacy that everything can be studied using scientific methods, and the only reason you would not is due to some kind or cognitive, ethical or egotistical failing.

I like to review this synopsis of confirmation bias every so often:

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs.
Wikipedia

Either you are affected by confirmation bias , I am affected by it, or we both are. Do you think it is possible to sort it out?

You have characterized my position regarding Science and Philosophy as stating that Science is good and Philosophy is bad. Is that really my position? I would characterize my positions more as asserting that Science works and Philosophy does not. Actually my position is that Science is Philosophy that employs crucial changes, and any knowledge acquisition process that does not incorporate these crucial changes will be prone to human error. Now if you were to insist that I am expressing my self in terms of good and bad, and using terms like nefarious then I have to wonder why.

You say that I assert that everything can be studied using scientific methods. I am pretty confident that I have not used the phrase "scientific methods" and I am quite certain that your understanding of the phrase "scientific methods" is quite different than mine. What I do say, and have said specifically in this conversation, is that any methods utilized to explore a particular problem or question will be those that are specific and necessary to the particular problem or question at hand. What differentiates a scientific investigation from any other is that it is conducted with the acknowledgement that human beings are imperfect and fallible, and if an investigation is to be successful, that imperfection and fallibility must be actively mitigated. If you consider that a fallacious position, then I must wonder why. Why should any avenue of investigation be shielded from mitigating human error?

That you continue to downplay the significance of the Scientific Revolution and characterize my position as "reading too much" into the changes that resulted in a demonstrably more successful investigative approach over that which was employed before can only leave me asking why.

I never said myths rely on gods, my point was that synthesising and modifying myths doesn't stop them being myths.

And since we do not have consensus on what is meant by the word 'myth', it is hard to proceed on these points.

With values systems though we experience them as being true, not as being purely subjective personal choice (at least with the most important principles).

If I like cheese and you don't, I see that as subjective preference. I don't see myself as being right and you as wrong. If I later get sick of eating cheese, I don't see myself as previously being wrong to like it. Preferences change.

On the other hand, if you think imperialism is wrong and I think it is good, you see me as being wrong. If I later change my mind and start to think imperialism is indeed wrong, I will see my former views as being wrong, not just a change in preference.

I agree that there can be preference choices that are considered benign by some individuals and there would be no sense of right or wrong attached. However, a lot of preference choices that should be benign are not considered as such. For example, someone considering Chinese opera as bad and less valuable than other forms of music.

I would say assigning feelings of right/wrong or good/bad to subjective value preferences would be proportional to how one perceive such choices affect themselves and how the choices made by others affect themselves. If one is indifferent to a subjective value choice or consider it benign, then there is no need to qualify it as good/bad or right/wrong.

Again, we can make up whatever values system we want whenever we want. The point is it is conceived, taught and maintained via narrative that is not objectively true (i.e. what I would call myth).

Like the example I gave before:

BLM protest: "Bloody riots illustrative of vacuous online culture and national decline promoted by people who hate America" or "an inspiring and overwhelmingly peaceful grassroots movement that heralds a brave new era of social justice and unity".

Both are broadly true, yet completely incompatible because of the ideologies driving each sides perception.

Both sides now have a powerful, and broadly true, myth that they tell and retell, a broadly true myth which they can use to interpret all kinds of other events which in themselves become mythologised.

I'd like to spend more time on answering the above so I will address it in a separate post.
 
Top