• 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

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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.
Hmm. As a materialist, I acknowledge that reductionism has substantial problems, at least at this stage of our knowledge.

Trouble is, I haven't found a credible alternative.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hmm. As a materialist, I acknowledge that reductionism has substantial problems, at least at this stage of our knowledge.

Trouble is, I haven't found a credible alternative.
Looking is an interesting problem?!!!! Everyone is a materialist there isn't such a thing as anyone that's not a materialist. I would say my degree is nonsensical reductionism into intellectual fantasy. It's theology. Reductionism leads down to all kinds of intellectual fantasies including and especially the doppleganger of materialism manifesting in my degree. Here on RF as well as other places I can see two dopplegangers arguing, they are a doppleganger of the other. I then have to ask, which doppleganger is correct? A doppleganger by definition here as I am using it are two people who share the same assumptions but argue the details. The majority of the time they agree, truth starts with the cranium, they just disagree on the details is all. I confront someone and they have no idea what I am pointing to. In psychology it's called the sub CONSCIOUS.

What I have written is very old not original and very well understood thousands of years ago. Freud and jung reintroduced it into modern cult-ure. But in antiquity, it was something that was more prelevant and more well understood than it is today. We "believe" that evolution is extremely linear in growing complexity it's not that simplistic and very very reductive. Since we "believe" evolution itself can be reductively determined we are a cult of reductionism by that belief default. If you are born Into a cult you tend to manifest the tendencies of the cult. Literacy is a funny funny thing. Some people make it out l, many many do not. John Muir is a good example of a cult escapee!!! He is one who has some interesting statements about this cult-ure of spells.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
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!!!
Ok so help a nature lover out, what about science should i brush aside. Think about like this, you could make a claim that all you need to do is sit under a tree to obtain realization some people might believe you. I don't doubt several people agree with you to a certain extent but what are you saying of science that is a lie? Nature conforms to mathematics and predictable via something simple yet complex as the Fibonacci sequence.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran 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'm currently experiencing great dissonance between your post and the truths of the Holy Bible.

Wait, I'm not.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Here on RF as well as other places I can see two dopplegangers arguing, they are a doppleganger of the other. I then have to ask, which doppleganger is correct? A doppleganger by definition here as I am using it are two people who share the same assumptions but argue the details.
My assumptions are that a world exists external to the self, that the senses are capable of informing us about that world, and that reason is a valid tool. Everyone who posts on the net shares at least the first two.

But that leaves plenty of scope for points of difference to be argued.
In psychology it's called the sub CONSCIOUS.
In the brain the nonconscious does virtually all the work. The conscious is there as an occasional referee or censor (when things get more complicated than the censor in the forebrain can handle).
Since we "believe" evolution itself can be reductively determined we are a cult of reductionism by that belief default.
I don't see reductionism providing problems for the theory of evolution. Do you have an example of what you mean?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
My assumptions are that a world exists external to the self, that the senses are capable of informing us about that world, and that reason is a valid tool. Everyone who posts on the net shares at least the first two.

But that leaves plenty of scope for points of difference to be argued.

In the brain the nonconscious does virtually all the work. The conscious is there as an occasional referee or censor (when things get more complicated than the censor in the forebrain can handle).
I don't see reductionism providing problems for the theory of evolution. Do you have an example of what you mean?
A dog is an evolutionist a cat is not an atheist.
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm currently experiencing great dissonance between your post and the truths of the Holy Bible.

Wait, I'm not.
when I am in nature the new testament is in the landscape when I walk into culture it's in people's heads!!!! Do I listen to people or nature?
 

David T

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Ok so help a nature lover out, what about science should i brush aside. Think about like this, you could make a claim that all you need to do is sit under a tree to obtain realization some people might believe you. I don't doubt several people agree with you to a certain extent but what are you saying of science that is a lie? Nature conforms to mathematics and predictable via something simple yet complex as the Fibonacci sequence.
A dog is an evolutionist a cat is not an atheist. I actually don't need science out in nature. If it helps me see the familial, the personal great if it's just a mechanical description so what that's easy stuff. In a sense as an artist you aren't creating scientific explanations but expressing qualities and sub conscious unconscious aspects. . Should we ignore science!? Absolutely not, what they experience is important. It sometimes the narratives that are a problem. Identical to religion problems of experience narrative. I can split narrative from experience that's hard to do.

I was a marine biology major at one time and am all about embodied spirituity anima mundi. That's not too far from modern enviromental studies types today.

It's not original Just like socrates heraclitus all the famous religious dudes and dudettes. Science Is wonderful it has dark corners like everything we are about that can convince itself of things that are not true or limited at best. Impossible to ignore science I have a smart phone typing away on at work on break to someone I have never met!!!
 
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?

Only that narratives/myths are more obviously cultural constructs based on culturally derived understandings of the world. How we explain to ourselves the foundation of our belief systems.

The term axiom seems to minimise the connection to cultural history.


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

What did science contribute to it? It is the epitome of human exceptionalism, unless you are aware of similar concepts being applied to other animals, which I am not.

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.

Whether religion has a positive or negative role in modern society is largely beside the point.

It's historical legacy on the intellectual traditions of diverse cultures is significant though.

I think the 'leftovers' of specific religious traditions in modern secular and humanistic thought are often understated. This leads to an assumption that narratives are easily transferred across cultural boundaries - the error of universalism.

We are really value pluralistic, we can probably say some things are universally wrong, but much of what comprises our value systems is made up of competing narratives that favour one subjective 'good' over another.

The difference between the acceptance of value pluralism over value universalism is significant. It is the difference between aiming for a world a world where everyone gets along, and aiming for a world where there are lots of people we don't really get along with but we don't resort to violence against each other.

The former is (imo) impossible, and trying to hard to get other people to 'think like us', no matter how well intended, tends to make the latter harder to achieve.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
What did science contribute to it? It is the epitome of human exceptionalism, unless you are aware of similar concepts being applied to other animals, which I am not.

Perhaps this is a semantics issue, but: Science has contributed, for example, the idea that no matter our skin color, we're all of the same species, we can give and receive blood from each other.

As for animals, there is a LOT of time and energy devoted to the ethical treatment of animals, and many of us are pushing to dispense with even marginally abusive treatment of animals.

As for "thinking like us", the UDHR takes a minimalist stance in this regard. It leaves a LOT of room for people to think differently. There are ways in which all humans think the same, the UDHR just shifts that universalism a bit. In other words, it's not black and white currently, and if we could apply the UDHR universally, it still wouldn't be black and white, it would just move us on the continuum.
 

`mud

Just old
Premium Member
cognitive dissonance
Hearing an angel playing a trumpet blaring from heaven on a clear night,
telling me that there isn't any hell.
 
Top