• 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!

Cognitive dissonance: science religion debates

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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 can't edit the above I wanted to add Eddie vedder hard sun. In a verse he speaks of cognitive dissonance:
Once I built an ivory tower
So I could worship from above,
But when I climbed down,
To be set free,
she took me in again.

That's an extremely powerful verse for me personally that I can't give justice to in something so primative as just writing.


People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.
Soren kierkegaard
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"Just be" is a lot easier said than done. Also, who'd want to be a plant?
Indeed that may be the hardest task in being a human!! Sometimes people ask "what is the meaning of life?" and I might say to first get to just being then come back to me with that question it won't make sense and you won't ask it. In regards to being a plant, they don't have to deal with Donald trump and politics, cultural noise, or concern themselves with just about everything that generally concerns modernity. To trees, cities are huge vast wilderness territories waiting to be explored and settled in as soon as the virus dies!!!! Lol.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
So you are saying science is completely independent of the anthropocene epoch? That actually can't be literally true in any form of evolutionary framework scientifically speaking. Scientifically speaking science is 99% responsible for the current environmental destruction not independent from it. Granted the other 1% belongs to the fruit loop ancient poetry, musical lyric readers of ancient texts we call religion. I really dont see poetry reading itself as the main problem, even if they have zero clue to understanding their ancient poetry. Yes they misread "dominnion over the earth" inncorrectly and very stupidly I might add but hell religion is just normal folks, since when is normal sensical? I see zero evidence of normal making sense at all.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
So you are saying science is completely independent of the anthropogenic epoch? That actually can't be literally true in any form of evolutionary framework scientifically speaking.
How we use knowledge and facts we learn from science does not have to do with whether we ought to save or destroy the planet. The facts are independent of humans needs, you can take the facts and do good or cause much harm.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How we use knowledge and facts we learn from science does not have to do with whether we ought to save or destroy the planet. The facts are independent of humans needs, you can take the facts and do good or cause much harm.
Symbiosis seems to be a difficult topic as well as metamorphosis in modern culture starting in science.I can't see how we can have a singular evolutionary tree and suddenly magically disconnect science from the reality of existence. It seems that humans thought in some regards is perceived as independent of evolution. That's Impossible. Even modern evolutionary theories don't account for itself in Evolutionary statements about evolution, again a kind of mysterious magic intellectual split that I don't get, going on.

I don't need modern science at all to understand nature, it's modern science convinced in aggregate it does understand nature!! Zero evidence of that being true as evidenced in the anthropocene epoch generated by science itself. Without science it does not exist at all that's scientific fact. I know my statements are actually sound good science because they are, based on evidence not bias. I just turn the scientific light on science itself suddenly its like lighting a room up with cockroaches.
 
Last edited:

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Symbiosis seems to be a difficult topic as well as metamorphosis in modern culture starting in science.I can't see how we can have a singular evolutionary tree and suddenly magically disconnect science from the reality of existence. It seems that humans thought in some regards is perceived as independent of evolution. That's Impossible. Even modern evolutionary theories don't account for itself in Evolutionary statements about evolution, again a kind of mysterious magic intellectual split that I don't get, going on.

I don't need modern science at all to understand nature, it's modern science convinced in aggregate it does understand nature!! Zero evidence of that being true as evidenced in the anthropocene epoch generated by science itself. Without science it does not exist at all that's scientific fact. I know my statements are actually sound good science because they are, based on evidence not bias. I just turn the scientific light on science itself suddenly its like lighting a room up with cockroaches.

What makes you think that symbiosis is so difficult to understand? It has happened many times. The only problem there are so many symbiotic relationships out there that you can't say just because one set of species evolved symbiosis in a particular way it does not mean that was how all symbiotic relationships evolved. This article may help you to understand:

How Symbiosis Works

And going after metamorphosis is merely cherry picking. Since there are very few records of how metamorphosism evolved it is very difficult to reconstruct how it happened. But not understanding a minor aspect of evolution in no ways harms the theory. There will always be unanswered questions in science. If someone wants to question the theory they need to find actual evidence that contradicts that theory. Until then this is just grasping at straws.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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).

There may be real things that we do not know about yet. One has a choice to guess what those might be and believe that they are real without sufficient evidence, or remain agnostic. I can't see any value in the former.

Dark matter is an idea that exists because of observations. Without a role in the universe, the idea would be useless and meaningless. It's value comes from observations of phenomena not explicable without the concept.

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.

You see? If that is true, then you are using your senses.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Symbiosis seems to be a difficult topic as well as metamorphosis in modern culture starting in science.I can't see how we can have a singular evolutionary tree and suddenly magically disconnect science from the reality of existence. It seems that humans thought in some regards is perceived as independent of evolution. That's Impossible. Even modern evolutionary theories don't account for itself in Evolutionary statements about evolution, again a kind of mysterious magic intellectual split that I don't get, going on.

I don't need modern science at all to understand nature, it's modern science convinced in aggregate it does understand nature!! Zero evidence of that being true as evidenced in the anthropocene epoch generated by science itself. Without science it does not exist at all that's scientific fact. I know my statements are actually sound good science because they are, based on evidence not bias. I just turn the scientific light on science itself suddenly its like lighting a room up with cockroaches.
Well some of us need ologys we can't all speak to trees.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
For me, 'truth' is conformity with objective reality.

What definition do you use?
What do you mean objective reality? I thought reality was objective unto itself objective and we are subject subjective to it. I could say nature is totally objective and we are totally subject subjective to it including and especially the intellect. In a sense all religion says that and then screws it up with reality being determined the intellect!! Wouldn't you agree the notion of intellect having anything to do with nature is an idiots understanding of nature? Nature is big, the intellect is tiny tiny young and primative. Interesting, religion says God is big we are small, then they get all screwy about it. Maybe religion has some truth and a lot of confusion in context to the idiot intellect!!!
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
What makes you think that symbiosis is so difficult to understand? It has happened many times. The only problem there are so many symbiotic relationships out there that you can't say just because one set of species evolved symbiosis in a particular way it does not mean that was how all symbiotic relationships evolved. This article may help you to understand:

How Symbiosis Works

And going after metamorphosis is merely cherry picking. Since there are very few records of how metamorphosism evolved it is very difficult to reconstruct how it happened. But not understanding a minor aspect of evolution in no ways harms the theory. There will always be unanswered questions in science. If someone wants to question the theory they need to find actual evidence that contradicts that theory. Until then this is just grasping at straws.
Obviously haven't studied symbiosis at all let alone understand it. I read "how symbiosis works" look stars align and I have good days' stars don't align and I have bad days science wow amazing0science

What you do understand it exists that's it and "how symbiosis works" understands it exists. I can understand something to exist but that's not understanding beyound that point at all. You can't extend I observe it therefore I understand it because I observe it. That's a common fallacy in bad science itself that's not even remotely sound science. I believe x to be true therefore x is true because I believe it to be true is another kind of reductive logic extention we tend to fall into that is not true that happens in religion.

The major problem with symbiosis is the statement must account for itself in its explanation, apparently your parental authority figure "how symbiosis works" doesn't seem aware of this simple fact. Your parental authority figure "believes" its independently objective from it!! Cute.
 
Last edited:

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well some of us need ologys we can't all speak to trees.

People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.


Kierkegaard

Lol I love that quote by Soren.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Scientifically speaking science is 99% responsible for the current environmental destruction

Science is 0% responsible for environmental destruction. That would be primarily the doing of government and industry using the knowledge gleaned by scientists.

I don't need modern science at all to understand nature

You do if you want a holistic understanding of it. You can still enjoy a flower without science, but to understand it you need science, which explains to you why it has the characteristics that you interpret asbeautiful and fragrant in term such as pollinators.

Science informs you that you, like the flower and most of all other life, and most of the earth are made principally of stardust.

Science explains to you how a flickering drop of starlight impinging upon your retina directly connects you to a monstrous ball of hydrogen that is unfathomly far away, and may be gone now even though its light continues to come to earth and the eyes on it.

What do you mean objective reality? I thought reality was objective unto itself objective and we are subject subjective to it.

It is in contrast to subjective reality.

Here's a subjective fact: I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla. It the truth, but perhaps for me and not you.

Here's an objective fact: Both chocolate and vanilla ice cream exist, and there are people that prefer one over the other, some preferring chocolate, and some preferring vanilla. That's the truth for both of us.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Obviously haven't studied symbiosis at all let alone understand it. I read "how symbiosis works" look stars align and I have good days' stars don't align and I have bad days science wow amazing0science

What you do understand it exists that's it and "how symbiosis works" understands it exists. I can understand something to exist but that's not understanding beyound that point at all. You can't extend I observe it therefore I understand it because I observe it. That's a common fallacy in bad science itself that's not even remotely sound science. I believe x to be true therefore x is true because I believe it to be true is another kind of reductive logic extention we tend to fall into that is not true that happens in religion.

The major problem with symbiosis is the statement must account for itself in its explanation, apparently your parental authority figure "how symbiosis works" doesn't seem aware of this simple fact. Your parental authority figure "believes" its independently objective from it!! Cute.

Quite a lot of word salad there. All I can see is a clear admission that you have not studied the topic.

Your inability to understand a topic does not refute anything.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
There may be real things that we do not know about yet. One has a choice to guess what those might be and believe that they are real without sufficient evidence, or remain agnostic. I can't see any value in the former.
I actually agree with that statement but I believe as I do because of sufficient evidence. I do not believe that I am 'just guessing'. There are some things I believe and some I am agnostic on.
Dark matter is an idea that exists because of observations. Without a role in the universe, the idea would be useless and meaningless. It's value comes from observations of phenomena not explicable without the concept.
I actually agree with that too.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
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.

This seems almost tautological? I'm a little confused here, is there some benefit to saying that an axiom is a form of narrative? What new insight can we gain if we say that an axiom can be thought of as a narrative?

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.

Well maybe? I'd hazard that both religion AND science contributed to a unified humanity view.

@Augustus - It seems we might have a long running miscommunication. I'm happy to acknowledge a few things about religion:

- Historically, there have been periods when religion has benefitted society.
- Religion has had some positive influences on today's society.

I'm happy to give such historical credit.

In a similar fashion, I'd say that for a period of time, steam engines were a fantastic contribution to transportation. But technology has marched on. So we can appreciate steam engines but not be anchored to them.

So I'm happy to acknowledge religion's past contributions. But our understanding of the cosmos and of our own nature has marched on, and those bronze age perspectives are now mostly anchors.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What do you mean objective reality?
A thing has objective existence ─ is real ─ if it exists independently of the concept of it in any brain. Reality is the sum of real things. In the right context, 'nature' is another word for it.
Wouldn't you agree the notion of intellect having anything to do with nature is an idiots understanding of nature?
Not sure I follow you here. Intellect is an aspect of working brains, and accordingly arose within nature. And although scientific method maximizes objectivity, the selection of topics, priorities, fields of relevance, examples, is never wholly free of our subjectivity, our evolved worldview as humans.
Nature is big, the intellect is tiny tiny young and primative.
But even if we only advanced by little steps, we'd still advance.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Quite a lot of word salad there. All I can see is a clear admission that you have not studied the topic.

Your inability to understand a topic does not refute anything.
Really? Thats it? I
Quite a lot of word salad there. All I can see is a clear admission that you have not studied the topic.

Your inability to understand a topic does not refute anything.
One Cant make comments about nature independent of nature at simple fundemental levels and be true that's impossible. You are fantasizing intellectually to think otherwise. Since symbiosis and metamorphis are both in play in nature and intellect is dependent upon it the intellect cannot define it and be true at the same time. You can believe it to be true it is not true. It's like talking about consciousness it's Stupid abstractionism convincing itself Is that clearer? Reduction is a joke except handy for making things that's it big deal.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A thing has objective existence ─ is real ─ if it exists independently of the concept of it in any brain. Reality is the sum of real things. In the right context, 'nature' is another word for it.

Not sure I follow you here. Intellect is an aspect of working brains, and accordingly arose within nature. And although scientific method maximizes objectivity, the selection of topics, priorities, fields of relevance, examples, is never wholly free of our subjectivity, our evolved worldview as humans.

But even if we only advanced by little steps, we'd still advance.
Well I agree with your understanding of nature. Yes tiny steps and not as many as we imagine either. I had to ask, Objective reality often times in modern culture tends to be expressed as some philosophical statement in context to the intellect. I can seem anti intellectual if I attack that or I confuse people by turning statements in on themselves. Good science has nature in proper perspective, that's actually rarer in science which tends to be dominated by reductionism, not unlike religious orthodoxy, dogma, doctrine, which is also nonsense reductionism.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
People understand me so poorly that they don't even understand my complaint about them not understanding me.

Kierkegaard

Lol I love that quote by Soren.
In nature is one of my favorite methods for writing.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
In nature is one of my favorite methods for writing.
Yea it's like it frees you. Idav I don't think much of statements about nature that don't make us at least feel more deeply connected and more embodied in nature. Like if I am not smelling pine cones and rain and grass I don't care what's written. If it doesn't create a sense of magic in the air I don't care. I am baffled by so many who find the auto repair manual approach to nature (science) even remotely meaningful. Just as I find the false magicalism of certain individuals in religion extremely wierd. Sometimes I just see here weird arguing with wierd!!!! Lookie spelt different that's it. Not a single wiff of trees ocean sky air no wilderness just a dull dead box. Spells a funny topic!!!
 
Top