Cognitive dissonance: science religion debates

[David T]

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.

 

[WalterTrull]

"Just be" is a lot easier said than done. Also, who'd want to be a plant?

 

[idav]

Science is just a means to acquire knowledge. What we do with the facts and whether the truth is "pretty" or not are different matters all together.

 

[icehorse]

My beacon is universal human rights. The UDHR seems like a fine codification of human rights.

To me, if we could all come to accept the UDHR, then we could look at dissonant ideologies and begin to strip out those ideas that are counter to universal human rights. I acknowledge that my bias is towards science. That said, some examples of stripping out anti-UDHR ideas would be:

- stop religions from influencing textbooks
- stop religions from influencing political policies
- stop religions from enacting misogyny and homophobia and so on
- stop religions from influencing the pillaging of the planet

Now to a large degree, big business uses science to behave counter to the UDHR. So this sort of thing should also be stopped:

- using science to wreck the environment to the benefit of agri-biz
- using science to create crappy food
- using science to invade our privacy

And so on...

 

[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 have never encountered cognitive dissonance myself. What does it feel like?

 

[George-ananda]

I am one that does not allow cognitive dissonance in my head. If there were a dissonance, I would have to think it out and not live with the dissonance. I require logic in my thinking.

I fully accept science and my spiritual beliefs and experience no dissonance. Intelligent science and intelligent spiritual beliefs can co-exist in my head.

 

[David T]

I have never encountered cognitive dissonance myself. What does it feel like?

It's exactly like sex!!! Oh wait I made a false assumption.. Damn it that's an idea predicated on a false assumption communicated like it was fundemtally true for everyone. Sorry my bad..

Damn dumb phone. Hilareous response btw!!!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The argument that culturally develops between religion and science

Science has no interest in religion.

Some aspects of some religions have a problem with the science that contradicts their faith based beliefs.

The split between science and religion I think bodes ill winds for modernity.

Some of the earliest science challenged church doctrine about the natural world. Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo come to mind immediately. That was bad for the church and anybody that defied it, but good for humanity as truth and knowledge generally is.

Sure, a cultural war is being waged between religionists and secular humanists even now, but that is healthy. That is part of the transition from a predominantly faith based culture to more evidence and reason based dominant world view.

 

[David T]

Science has no interest in religion.

Some aspects of some religions have a problem with the science that contradicts their faith based beliefs.



Some of the earliest science challenged church doctrine about the natural world. Copernicus, Bruno, and Galileo come to mind immediately. That was bad for the church and anybody that defied it, but good for humanity as truth and knowledge generally is.

Sure, a cultural war is being waged between religionists and secular humanists even now, but that is healthy. That is part of the transition from a predominantly faith based culture to more evidence and reason based dominant world view.

Really you are creating a cognitive dissonance of intellectual fantasy. Trees make more sense.

 

[Augustus]

My beacon is universal human rights. The UDHR seems like a fine codification of human rights.

To me, if we could all come to accept the UDHR, then we could look at dissonant ideologies and begin to strip out those ideas that are counter to universal human rights. I acknowledge that my bias is towards science.

Science tells us we are animals like any other. The UDHR is founded on human exceptionalism and mythology.

This can be a source of cognitive dissonance...

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Really you are creating a cognitive dissonance of intellectual fantasy. Trees make more sense.

You couldn't understand what I wrote? Ask a tree. I'll bet it could make sense of my words, and maybe even explain them to you.

 

[icehorse]

Science tells us we are animals like any other. The UDHR is founded on human exceptionalism and mythology.

This can be a source of cognitive dissonance...

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?"

 

[idav]

Science tells us we are animals like any other. The UDHR is founded on human exceptionalism and mythology.

This can be a source of cognitive dissonance...

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?

 

[David T]

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?"

That would be a good thread. The problem is one could never come to a 100% consensus.the other problem is it would be like trying to square the circle. It would always appear circular to some and a completely boxed or reductive notion to others. We then could intellectually battle and thus cognitive dissonance would develop. We then would create separate institutions based on certain truths vs others certain truths and even More cognitive dissonance if outside either group!! Each group would be convinced of its truth so apparently there are carriers or transmitters of cognitive dissonance, immune to the dissonance!!!!!

 

[David T]

You couldn't understand what I wrote? Ask a tree. I'll bet it could make sense of my words, and maybe even explain them to you.

OK let me simplify..
I have never personally met science so to personify in in a teleological way you did "science has no interest in religion" is weirdly uninformed about science itself. I could go on but to be honest if that actually doesn't make sense, well so be it not my problem.

Apparently you are under some fantasy notion that science is magically objective which again is bad science. Hell I might as well start talking about random chance and the resurrection all in one breath. So yea the trees know that science telelogicalized as you did is mad, thus you are a carrier of cognitive dissonance immune to it. That's normal!!!

 

[David T]

I am one that does not allow cognitive dissonance in my head. If there were a dissonance, I would have to think it out and not live with the dissonance. I require logic in my thinking.

I fully accept science and my spiritual beliefs and experience no dissonance. Intelligent science and intelligent spiritual beliefs can co-exist in my head.

I think that's probably the best way to go about it. Getting there is not easy and and how resonance and dissonant is for us is most likely different. In fact that's very real. Personally I allow nature to be objective and diminish the intellect to a fancy subjective articulated thumb to nature. What creates dissonance for me from others is when that primative thumb Convinces itself it's brilliant and wants to inform everyone else how brilliant it is. It's not, the intellect is just a thumb well developed able to grasp certain branches better is all.

I tend to treat cognitive dissonance as symptom that apparently, can be generated by others who are carriers of it and immune to it at the same time. !!!! It's it's Like small pox to me!!!! .

 

[icehorse]

That would be a good thread. The problem is one could never come to a 100% consensus.the other problem is it would be like trying to square the circle. It would always appear circular to some and a completely boxed or reductive notion to others. We then could intellectually battle and thus cognitive dissonance would develop. We then would create separate institutions based on certain truths vs others certain truths and even More cognitive dissonance if outside either group!! Each group would be convinced of its truth so apparently there are carriers or transmitters of cognitive dissonance, immune to the dissonance!!!!!

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".

 

[blü 2]

I am one that does not allow cognitive dissonance in my head. If there were a dissonance, I would have to think it out and not live with the dissonance. I require logic in my thinking.

I fully accept science and my spiritual beliefs and experience no dissonance. Intelligent science and intelligent spiritual beliefs can co-exist in my head.

Surely that requires you to have two incompatible definitions of 'true'?

 

[George-ananda]

Surely that requires you to have two incompatible definitions of 'true'?

No, 'true' has only one meaning to me. Not being a follower of 'scientism', I learn about truth from more than physical science.

 

[blü 2]

No, 'true' has only one meaning to me. Not being a follower of 'scientism', I learn about truth from more than physical science.

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

What definition do you use?