Factional Science Faith

[Jim]

I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.

 

[danieldemol]

I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.

“Great indeed is the claim of scientists… on the peoples of the world,” Bahá'u'lláh observed.

Personally I see it as a good thing that people are gradually preferring hard research to blind tradition

 

[Enoch07]

It's a thing. But there is already a word for it.

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Some use science in place of religion, others use ideas like social justice. An easy way to see a full list is just to Google a "list of ideologies". But basically anything that ends with an "ism" is an ideology.

@sayak83 toyed with the idea of a science based religion (or something similar) about a year or so ago.

 

[sayak83]

I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.

There is only one science...that being done by scientists in universities and research laboraties and research centers and publshed in scientific journals. There is no other. There has never been.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I dont think we can rule out science It might not be seen as a religion, but those who only believe in science kind of see it in a religious way
As a Buddhist i have gone thru some stages in my practice, from refusing science all together, to understanding that Buddha him self said it is ok to do research outside the teaching, actually he did say that was a good thing. Because if I as a buddhist can find fault in the teaching i do not need to follow that part of the teaching. But in my research within buddhism i have not yet found that "big" fault that lead me to only look at science, but i found a middle way. to look at both

 

[Jim]

It's a thing. But there is already a word for it.

i·de·ol·o·gy
/ˌīdēˈäləjē,ˌidēˈäləjē/
noun

1. 1.
   a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Some use science in place of religion, others use ideas like social justice. An easy way to see a full list is just to Google a "list of ideologies". But basically anything that ends with an "ism" is an ideology

What I'm calling "Factional Science Faith," includes some ideologies, but it's much more than that. It has its own rituals, theologians, practices, prophets, preachers, institutions and secondary literature that it substitutes in the place of religious ones. I'm not sure about places of worship, but that seems likely to me. I'm still not satisfied with my choice of words. Maybe, "factional science culture."

 

[HonestJoe]

What I'm calling "Factional Science Faith," includes some ideologies, but it's much more than that. It has its own rituals, theologians, practices, prophets, preachers, institutions and secondary literature that it substitutes in the place of religious ones. I'm not sure about places of worship, but that seems likely to me.

Maybe you could list specific examples of all these things, or is your belief in their existence just based on blind faith?

Regardless, I’m not sure what the point is in your statements. If whatever it is you’re trying to describe actually exists, what are you proposing should be done about it?

 

[Jim]

Regardless, I’m not sure what the point is in your statements. If whatever it is you’re trying to describe actually exists, what are you proposing should be done about it?

It helps answer some questions for me, and facilitates my thinking about some things. I thought it might do the same for some other people. I'm not proposing for anyone to do anything about it, if it doesn't do anything for them.

 

[Dan Mellis]

I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.

I don't doubt there are people who do this. However, these reports are tried and tested again and again and again. It only takes one person to point out a fatal flaw, and theyre scrapped.

This point is usually made by people who characterise science as some sort of entity. It's a process which is driven by not having faith in any single conclusion.

To give an example; evolution. Now i'm not going to get into evolution v creationism. I'm going to tentatively assume you're ok with evolution as a premise.

We start with observable fact. Species change over time. Humans are taller than they were 1000 years ago. Simple, observable facts.

Theory one: (forgotten his name) evolution. Essentially, traits gained by the parents are passed on to their kids - e.g. if you are a bodybuilder, your kid will be strong. We know that's false through observation and testing.

Theory 2: Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Genetic code is passed on with tiny flaws. The vast majority of these flaws are either bred out or lead to the death of the animal. The tiny, tiny percentage of advantageous flaws are passed on through genetic code. Repeat for millenia.

Scientific theory is falsifiable - if we found a fossilised human that we can date to the jurassic period, and we cant come up with a reasonable explaination, it's back to the drawing board for Darwin's theory. It hasn't happened yet, despite numerous attempts (which is good, attempts to disprove is how science moves on) so we're reasonably assured of its veracity. Not entirely convinced, but reasonably assured.

I believe in Darwinian evolution. Not through faith in something without evidence, but trust in those people who are qualified to produce that evidence and are sceptical about it. There's nothing wrong with trust when balanced with available evidence. I understand the theory.and am ok with the premise of it.

I'm not ok with christian science, and do not trust the scientists who would practice it. They have an ulterior motive - true science is led by the evidence not the conclusion. It doesn't have preconceived notions about truth.

So, when you say people have faith in science, you're misunderstanding science. (Most) people place trust in the system of science based on available evidence, and do not place trust in conclusions where the methodology is flawed.

Its like saying you can cross the road without looking, because you have faith in the system. In reality, you check the available evidence (looking both ways) because you want to be right.

 

[Thief]

I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.

so....believing in God because of science
science as a preference over scripture?

 

[Audie]

I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.

Curious why you are so concerned with this?
Are you sure it even exists? You are sure your
god exists, but, can show no evidence.

And substituting research papers for "scripture"?
Are you sure? Is there an example of this?

As for "blind faith", hath thou an example of this?

It sounds like projection. Faith in "god" of some sort
if of needs, bling; for lo, there is no data, no nothing
but faith, of the blind sort.

Any research can be tested. We generally dont, but
then, we do not check air pressure and the tensile
strength of the springs first, before we drive a car.

It is "faith"of a sort, but hardly blind. Not like
trusting in something that has all the same
features as something that does not exist at all.

 

[Jim]

so....believing in God because of science
science as a preference over scripture?

That doesn’t look to me like anything I was thinking. What I was thinking about scriptures was that sometimes I see people using research reports in all the worst ways that I’ve seen people using religious scriptures. For example, not actually reading them, and trusting their faction leaders to tell them what they say..

 

[Jim]

“Great indeed is the claim of scientists… on the peoples of the world,” Bahá'u'lláh observed.

Personally I see it as a good thing that people are gradually preferring hard research to blind tradition

If there’s any more you’d like to say about that, I’m interested.

 

[Jim]

There is only one science...that being done by scientists in universities and research laboraties and research centers and publshed in scientific journals. There is no other. There has never been.

I like it that you think of science as something that people do.

 

[Thief]

That doesn’t look to me like anything I was thinking. What I was thinking about scriptures was that sometimes I see people using research reports in all the worst ways that I’ve seen people using religious scriptures. For example, not actually reading them, and trusting their faction leaders to tell them what they say..

ok....the guy at the podium using what he can to push his train of thought

I got it

and when they do that I turn the channel

 

[Jim]

... but i found a middle way. to look at both

If there’s any more you’d like to say about that, I’m interested. Have you talked about that anywhere in these forums, about your middle way, and examples of how you look at both?

 

[Spirit of Light]

If there’s any more you’d like to say about that, I’m interested. Have you talked about that anywhere in these forums, about your middle way, and examples of how you look at both?

Well i would say that to be spiritual is a big part of me, but to understand the physical world it is good to have science to explain it . Buddhism is actually not so far away from science in many ways, because both paths are investigation of reality. the big difference is that buddhism also have the teaching of the unseen or mystical if you want to call it that.

The middle path that Buddha Sakyamuni was teaching s a good example of how to live our life. To not be extreme and to not be ignorant toward anything in life. And to do our own investigation in to what does work and what does not work in the spiritual path.

 

[Audie]

That doesn’t look to me like anything I was thinking. What I was thinking about scriptures was that sometimes I see people using research reports in all the worst ways that I’ve seen people using religious scriptures. For example, not actually reading them, and trusting their faction leaders to tell them what they say..

Faction leaders. What is a faction, who are the leaders?
How do they tell them what to say,why do they listen?

I've never heard of this stuff. How did you find out about it?

Or is it just "useful" to be asked to make some sense?

 

[Jim]

@Audie I’m planning to respond to your posts after I respond to some others. Also, I’m planning to post some examples to try to clarify what I’m thinking.

 

[Jim]

@Audie What I'm thinking of is in the debating that I've seen in Internet discussions and media stories. The factions that I'm thinking of are the echo chambers on one side or another of each debate, people endlessly repeating the same things in the same words, things that they've read or heard somewhere. Sometimes in those debates, I see people using research reports in all the worst ways that I see people using religious scriptures, and using the word "science" in all the worst ways that I see people using the word "God." In that debating, the word "science" has no more meaning than the word "God." If you ask five different people what they mean by "science," you'll get five different answers. It's just a word that serves the same psychological and social purposes sometimes as "God" does sometimes, for example to feel vindicated in what they're saying, for virtue signaling, or to try to shame or intimidate people into submission. Sometimes I see people saying "science has proven," or that some view is "against science," again not actually communicating anything, but in the same way and for the same reasons that people say "the Bible says," or that some view is "against the Bible." The people saying "science has proven" or that some view is "against science," are talking about some research reports that they've never actually read. They're trusting other people to tell them what the research says, which is rarely or never what the research actually says. It's always some kind of factional misrepresentation and often even falsification of what the research says, just like what people think that their religious scriptures say.