Evidence, specifically scientific evidence.

[exchemist]

And not one freakin' person here would say otherwise!!!

Do you agree with anything else he says?

I'm not sure. He seems to be a difficult person to understand, in that he says provocative things and then implies they were to some degree rhetorical hyperbole.

We should probably stop analysing this particular data set now and wait for more data to accumulate before returning to the problem.

 

[exchemist]

Only in relation to the pursuit of wisdom, rather than the pursuit of knowledge regarding the interconnected functionality of the physical world. There is no reason for you to be offended by this, that I can think of.

And "scientism" is a real meme, that really does eschew subjective wisdom for the specter of "objective truth".
Well, I believe that would be an unfairly extreme characterization of me. Though I admit that I have a writing/speaking style that's a bit confrontational and 'edgy' at times. It comes from a belief that if I want to say something, I should say it out loud, and with conviction, so everyone can hear it, and listen. No mumbling!

Also, I can't help what other people can't or aren't willing to understand. And it's not my responsibility to "correct" their shortcomings in that regard. It's theirs. So I tend not to be especially accommodating when people accuse me of being delusional simply because they can't grasp the subject at hand.

OK. But I think you owe us a definition of wisdom, as you see it. Do you want to start a thread? Or if I start one will you contribute?

 

[Audie]

I'm not going to "name names", sorry. The names don't matter to me. What matters is the existence of the ideology, and it's effect on those who hold it, and on those around them. I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp what I'm referring to without specific names and posts, but I'm not going to look them up and start a fight with them to satisfy you. 'Exchemist' seems to have grasped the point and the examples just fine, (though he's perceiving it in greater extreme then was intended or necessary, but that's probably the result of the way I write).

You could give at least post number for an example, if there were any to give.
Or call up examples from anywhere, but, you cannot do the impossible.

All you have to give is excuses. You have no examples because there aren't any.

Exchem only agrees with your stunningly obvious point
that science is not the universal be-all.

Whatever else you are trying to convey is a mix of fantasy
and obscurantism. Exchem nor anyone else
including you, evidently, knows wtf you mean by "wisdom", nor
what "scientism" is, in your mind, nor yet have any seen,
including you, a specimen of this chimera, the
"Scientism(ist)".

Sans a scrap of data from you, I guess I will follow
Exc's lead out of this non-conversation.

 

[Polymath257]

There are those among us that DO believe that science can answer every question (that matters), and will do so, eventually. More than I think you realize.

I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that science can answer questions of aesthetics. I doubt anyone thinks it can *answer* (as opposed to informing) questions of morality.

The point is that science answers questions of objective facts. Anything that is primarily a matter of opinion, or a question of goals, is beyond the methods of science. Science can *inform* what the expected consequences are of various courses of action, but it cannot say which course of action to take--that is a matter of goals and ethics, not of objective fact.

And certainly, questions of goals, of ethics, and aesthetics matter. So it is quite clear that science cannot answer many questions that 'matter'.

 

[PureX]

I'm not sure. He seems to be a difficult person to understand, in that he says provocative things and then implies they were to some degree rhetorical hyperbole.

What I'm saying is not provocative from my point of view. It just is what it is. That you take it as some sort of challenge would indicate perhaps a bias, or blind spot on your part, that seeks to defend/preserve itself.

And I'm not posting this to be provocative, either, but just to pose a reasonable observation regarding your reaction and that of others, here. But how I see it is not your problem any more than how you see it is mine. We are here, presumably, to share insights with each other, to then be taken or left as we each see fit.

 

[PureX]

OK. But I think you owe us a definition of wisdom, as you see it. Do you want to start a thread? Or if I start one will you contribute?

I think it's an interesting subject, and one that will not be easily clarified. Because wisdom is a subjective concept (meaning it's a metaphysical/ideological phenomena, rather than a physical/material one), and it's a subjective endeavor that not everyone understands or is interested in pursuing, even as they'll tell themselves that they are (which is one of the reason why science cannot effectively address it).

 

[PureX]

I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that science can answer questions of aesthetics. I doubt anyone thinks it can *answer* (as opposed to informing) questions of morality.

The point is that science answers questions of objective facts. Anything that is primarily a matter of opinion, or a question of goals, is beyond the methods of science. Science can *inform* what the expected consequences are of various courses of action, but it cannot say which course of action to take--that is a matter of goals and ethics, not of objective fact.

And certainly, questions of goals, of ethics, and aesthetics matter. So it is quite clear that science cannot answer many questions that 'matter'.

I appreciate your input and your reasonable position, but it sheds no light at all on what other people (particularly those who have succumbed to "scientism") are thinking.

 

[ecco]

And cringing when someone says "if I was you.."
or "irregardless".

"Me"! Let's no forget about people who fear "me" and inappropriately say "I" or, worse yet, "myself".

 

[Polymath257]

I appreciate your input and your reasonable position, but it sheds no light at all on what other people (particularly those who have succumbed to "scientism") are thinking.

Can you give an example of someone, not even necessarily on this forum, who you think has succumbed to scientism to the degree they think aesthetics and morality are answerable by science?

 

[PureX]

Can you give an example of someone, not even necessarily on this forum, who you think has succumbed to scientism to the degree they think aesthetics and morality are answerable by science?

I encounter people on this forum and others that believe religion is not only useless, but detrimental. They see it as nothing but blind superstition fueled by fear and willful ignorance, and controlled by hucksters and thieves. When I try to point out to them that the vast majority of humans on this planet engage in faith in some ideal of God, because they find it helps them to live a better life, I am told that this is just a "placebo effect" that only works on the unknowing and weak-minded, and that it is therefor a dishonest, or "false" result.

What bothers me about this kind of response is that it completely ignores the goal of human well-being in favor of some sort of pseudo-scientific obsession with physical reality as the only and absolute truth. It also ignores the fact that what science discovers is no different than what faith discovers, and that is 'what works' for us, and what doesn't. The only real difference being that faith does this individually and subjectively, while science tries to do it collectively, and objectively. And as this obsession with objective-reality-as-truth becomes more entrenched, it becomes less and less mindful (and respectful) of the subjective human experience of being, and of the value of seeking wisdom over knowledge. Because wisdom is a subjective phenomena, and "scientism" is obsessed with objective phenomena, only and exclusively.

So that art and philosophy become mere entertainments, and hobbies, that people engage in over drinks and in their idle times at the computer. Not to be taken seriously as essential human disciplines that relate directly to our understanding and experience of existence. As only science can legitimately define that!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I encounter people on this forum and others that believe religion is not only useless, but detrimental. They see it as nothing but blind superstition fueled by fear and willful ignorance, and controlled by hucksters and thieves. When I try to point out to them that the vast majority of humans on this planet engage in faith in some ideal of God, because they find it helps them to live a better life, I am told that this is just a "placebo effect" that only works on the unknowing and weak-minded, and that it is therefor a dishonest, or "false" result.

What bothers me about this kind of response is that it completely ignores the goal of human well-being in favor of some sort of pseudo-scientific obsession with physical reality as the only and absolute truth. It also ignores the fact that what science discovers is no different than what faith discovers, and that is 'what works' for us, and what doesn't. The only real difference being that faith does this individually and subjectively, while science tries to do it collectively, and objectively. And as this obsession with objective-reality-as-truth becomes more entrenched, it becomes less and less mindful (and respectful) of the subjective human experience of being, and of the value of seeking wisdom over knowledge. Because wisdom is a subjective phenomena, and "scientism" is obsessed with objective phenomena, only and exclusively.

So that art and philosophy become mere entertainments, and hobbies, that people engage in over drinks and in their idle times at the computer. Not to be taken seriously as essential human disciplines that relate directly to our understanding and experience of existence. As only science can legitimately define that!

I don't mind too much if religious people point to the good that they do. As long as they also own up to the bad deeds that have done due to their beliefs. All too often I we see the No True Scotsman fallacy of "that was not a true Christian". If you want others to accept the the good that comes from your religion you also need to own up to its faults.

 

[Polymath257]

I encounter people on this forum and others that believe religion is not only useless, but detrimental. They see it as nothing but blind superstition fueled by fear and willful ignorance, and controlled by hucksters and thieves. When I try to point out to them that the vast majority of humans on this planet engage in faith in some ideal of God, because they find it helps them to live a better life, I am told that this is just a "placebo effect" that only works on the unknowing and weak-minded, and that it is therefor a dishonest, or "false" result.

And much of this I would agree with.

What bothers me about this kind of response is that it completely ignores the goal of human well-being in favor of some sort of pseudo-scientific obsession with physical reality as the only and absolute truth. It also ignores the fact that what science discovers is no different than what faith discovers, and that is 'what works' for us, and what doesn't. The only real difference being that faith does this individually and subjectively, while science tries to do it collectively, and objectively. And as this obsession with objective-reality-as-truth becomes more entrenched, it becomes less and less mindful (and respectful) of the subjective human experience of being, and of the value of seeking wisdom over knowledge. Because wisdom is a subjective phenomena, and "scientism" is obsessed with objective phenomena, only and exclusively.

Science looks for truth, not meaning. So yes, science is devoted to objective phenomena. And yes, I think that subjective experiences need to be tempered with objective knowledge. Wisdom isn't wise if it ignores knowledge. Wisdom consists, in my mind, of knowledge tempered by compassion. I don't consider it a matter of wisdom *over* knowledge, but a joint venture of wisdom *and* knowledge. Each has their venue. The venue of knowledge is truth. The venue of wisdom is meaning.

So that art and philosophy become mere entertainments, and hobbies, that people engage in over drinks and in their idle times at the computer. Not to be taken seriously as essential human disciplines that relate directly to our understanding and experience of existence. As only science can legitimately define that!

Again, aesthetics and morality are essential aspects of life that cannot be answered by the scientific method. They can, and must, be *informed* by it, though. To ignore truth in the pursuit of wisdom is not wise.

Intelligence without compassion is inhuman. Compassion without intelligence is ineffective.

 

[PureX]

I don't mind too much if religious people point to the good that they do. As long as they also own up to the bad deeds that have done due to their beliefs. All too often I we see the No True Scotsman fallacy of "that was not a true Christian". If you want others to accept the the good that comes from your religion you also need to own up to its faults.

I think you're overlooking the point, which is the good that 'faith in God' has done for those who have chosen to engage in it. Billions of human beings are living better, happier, and wiser lives because they have chosen to trust in their idea of "God", and to live accordingly. Yes, they are also often good to others as a result, but that's the secondary value. The primary value is personal, immediate, and is, of course, subjective.

And yet all this value means little to nothing to those who have fallen into the obsession with "objective-reality-equals-truth" crowd. Because human well-being, and the faith that billions engage in to make it better, are both subjective phenomena. And to the objectivity obsessed, such subjective phenomena are mostly dismissed as misleading irrelevancies. Especially when they're someone else's subjective phenomena.

It's true that humans have done great harm in the name of religion. But most of those humans would have done that same harm in the name of whatever ideology enabled their desire to do harm. Humans have done harm in the name of every ideology under the sun at some time or other, but that doesn't make every ideology under the sun bad, or harmful. It just makes a lot of humans bad, and harmful. Yet try telling this to the atheist that has succumbed to "scientism", and so is unwaveringly intent on disparaging and dismissing anything that does not align with his obsession with the objective-reality-equals-truth ideology. it's an exercise in futility, just like explaining evolution to a creationist, is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you're overlooking the point, which is the good that 'faith in God' has done for those who have chosen to engage in it. Billions of human beings are living better, happier, and wiser lives because they have chosen to trust in their idea of "God", and to live accordingly. Yes, they are also often good to others as a result, but that's the secondary value. The primary value is personal, immediate, and is, of course, subjective.

And yet all this value means little to nothing to those who have fallen into the obsession with "objective-reality-equals-truth" crowd. Because human well-being, and the faith that billions engage in to make it better, are both subjective phenomena. And to the objectivity obsessed, such subjective phenomena are mostly dismissed as misleading irrelevancies. Especially when they're someone else's subjective phenomena.

It's true that humans have done great harm in the name of religion. But most of those humans would have done that same harm in the name of whatever ideology enabled their desire to do harm. Humans have done harm in the name of every ideology under the sun at some time or other, but that doesn't make every ideology under the sun bad, or harmful. It just makes a lot of humans bad, and harmful. Yet try telling this to the atheist that has succumbed to "scientism", and so is unwaveringly intent on disparaging and dismissing anything that does not align with his obsession with the objective-reality-equals-truth ideology. it's an exercise in futility, just like explaining evolution to a creationist, is.

It is very hard to say if people would have done the same without religion. I think that our overall progress in this world has largely occurred in spite of religion. Also I sincerely doubt your "billions of human beings" claim. That one seriously needs to be supported, and the fact that billions of human beings may be religious does not support that claim. You made a rather specific one, that somehow faith in God has improved their lives.

 

[ecco]

I encounter people on this forum and others that believe religion is not only useless, but detrimental. They see it as nothing but blind superstition fueled by fear and willful ignorance, and controlled by hucksters and thieves.

Guilty as charged.

What bothers me about this kind of response is that ... It also ignores the fact that what science discovers is no different than what faith discovers,

Nonsense.
Science discovers the atom and aspirin and germ theory...
Faith discovers belief in one of thousands of gods,

So that art and philosophy become mere entertainments, and hobbies, that people engage in over drinks and in their idle times at the computer. Not to be taken seriously as essential human disciplines that relate directly to our understanding and experience of existence. As only science can legitimately define that!

More nonsense. Most people who believe science also appreciate art and philosophy.

Stop pretending you know what other people feel or think or believe.

 

[ecco]

It's true that humans have done great harm in the name of religion. But most of those humans would have done that same harm in the name of whatever ideology enabled their desire to do harm.

Which is more powerful?

• Go out and fight to defend your King
• Go out and fight to save your Country
• Go out and fight in the name of your God

 

[Polymath257]

I think you're overlooking the point, which is the good that 'faith in God' has done for those who have chosen to engage in it. Billions of human beings are living better, happier, and wiser lives because they have chosen to trust in their idea of "God", and to live accordingly. Yes, they are also often good to others as a result, but that's the secondary value. The primary value is personal, immediate, and is, of course, subjective.

And yet all this value means little to nothing to those who have fallen into the obsession with "objective-reality-equals-truth" crowd. Because human well-being, and the faith that billions engage in to make it better, are both subjective phenomena. And to the objectivity obsessed, such subjective phenomena are mostly dismissed as misleading irrelevancies. Especially when they're someone else's subjective phenomena.

It's true that humans have done great harm in the name of religion. But most of those humans would have done that same harm in the name of whatever ideology enabled their desire to do harm. Humans have done harm in the name of every ideology under the sun at some time or other, but that doesn't make every ideology under the sun bad, or harmful. It just makes a lot of humans bad, and harmful. Yet try telling this to the atheist that has succumbed to "scientism", and so is unwaveringly intent on disparaging and dismissing anything that does not align with his obsession with the objective-reality-equals-truth ideology. it's an exercise in futility, just like explaining evolution to a creationist, is.

In my mind, the question is which is preferable: a comforting myth or an uncomfortable truth? Yes, the myth provides comfort and meaning, and the truth can be uncomfortable and cold.

But I will choose the truth over a myth any day. Many people don't see things this way, though.

 

[PureX]

It is very hard to say if people would have done the same without religion. I think that our overall progress in this world has largely occurred in spite of religion. Also I sincerely doubt your "billions of human beings" claim. That one seriously needs to be supported, and the fact that billions of human beings may be religious does not support that claim. You made a rather specific one, that somehow faith in God has improved their lives.

First, there are 7 billion of us on the planet, and 90% of us claim to believe and practice some form of faith in God/higher power/positive force or something similar. So this explains my "billions" comment.

Second, these people would not be engaged in this practice if it were doing them harm, by their own reckoning. And it is, after all, THEIR reckoning that matters. Not yours, or my agreement or approval.

Third, just as no one can say for certain that religion helps people avoid bad behavior, no one can say for certain that it causes it, either. But since people have behaved similarly badly for political reasons, for economic reasons, for philosophical/traditional/ethnic, and other sociological reasons, I think it's safe to assume that people just tend to behave badly toward each other, and that the ideologies that they blame their behavior on are mostly just being used as an excuse.

And lastly, the fact that you don't appear to want to acknowledge this simple and logical observation causes me to suspect a bias on your part, against religion. And perhaps against the whole concept of 'subjective truth'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First, there are 7 billion of us on the planet, and 90% of us claim to believe and practice some form of faith in God/higher power/positive force or something similar. So this explains my "billions" comment.

And I pointed out the error in that. You assume just because there are billions of religious people that that religion helped them. That assumption needs a lot more evidence than just the numbers of believers.

Second, these people would not be engaged in this practice if it were doing them harm, by their own reckoning. And it is, after all, THEIR reckoning that matters. Not yours, or my agreement or approval.

Another unsubstantiated claim. And even if they did not think that it did not do them harm that does not meant that is the case.

Third, just as no one can say for certain that religion helps people avoid bad behavior, no one can say for certain that it causes it, either. But since people have behaved similarly badly for political reasons, for economic reasons, for philosophical/traditional/ethnic, and other sociological reasons, I think it's safe to assume that people just tend to behave badly toward each other, and that the ideologies that they blame their behavior on are mostly just being used as an excuse.

That does not appear to be true at all when one compares the bad behavior of the religious to the bad behavior of those without religion. If anything it appears to be the other way around. Once again at best religion has only a negative effect there at best.

And lastly, the fact that you don't appear to want to acknowledge this simple and logical observation causes me to suspect a bias on your part, against religion. And perhaps against the whole concept of 'subjective truth'.

That is because there was no "logic" behind it. All you have are a combination of false and unsupported claims. No bias on my part, you appear to be projecting again. Asking for evidence is not "bias". Claiming something without evidence is bias.

 

[PureX]

Which is more powerful?

• Go out and fight to defend your King
• Go out and fight to save your Country
• Go out and fight in the name of your God

If one is looking for a fight, any (and all) of these will do as an excuse. If one is looking to avoid a fight, it will be the king that forces them to do it.