Please Define "Religion"

[dybmh]

Not requires community; a religion is a community.

As for why... it's just inherent to the term. You might as well be asking me to justify why a crowd needs multiple people.

So no real reason, that's just how you define it. OK.

 

[gnomon]

Religion is about community.

Specifically ethnic communities that developed a mythos to perpetuate their ideology.

But it gets hairy. Because some communities were able to take over and dominate other communities. However, those communities that were taken over were able to hold onto their own ethnic ideals while existing under the new umbrella of a new religion.

Rinse, wash, repeat.

 

[gnomon]

So no real reason, that's just how you define it. OK.

Yep. Religion is about community. Sorry to break it to ya bud.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So no real reason, that's just how you define it. OK.

That's how it's generally defined.

If you disagree, please point out one thing that:

- isn't a community, and
- is generally accepted as a religion.

Just one. Any one.

 

[rational experiences]

Family in natural law first. Mutual equal so was trade. Skill admired by each community.

Theist scientist cult group men bullies liars murderers torturers sacrificed of life. Scare tactic obey me or else.

Family did.

Family secretly congregated first congregation for human rights. Still meek.

Used conscious advice to argue....cult group killed them anyway.

Is the human answer what is religion about.

Hence congregation then warred. Religious history. Cult men disagree when it's about their losses by forces of humanity.

Science versus religion men conscious today state we must somehow form a new agreement. Knowing human history.

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
We can grow beyond myth, and it is ok to do so.​

A society without myth, were it possible, would be entirely transactional.
…
The only reason anyone would do something would be the rational evaluation of self-interest. Such a society would be fragile and would not endure the inevitable crises that emerge. A purely utilitarian approach only survives as long as people accept its utility in the face of competing narratives.

As it stands currently, people are doing things through the rational and/or irrational evaluation of self-interest. Self-interest will be at work in every societal approach.

You must concede that *any* societal approach will only survive as long as people accept its utility in the face of competing narratives, or unless a segment of the population has sufficient power to maintain stability with the societal approach of their choosing.

As to a transactional society, is that not the foundation of Social Contract Theory as espoused by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau? I do not see the political systems that emerged from this philosophy as being particularly fragile.

Human life is sacred as we are all made in god's image (religious mythos)

We all have inalienable rights based on our common humanity and obligation to make the world better for future generations. (secular mythos)

Human life has no intrinsic value. We simply pretend it does as it is utilitarian. (myth free version)

For clarity it is my assumption that mythos simply means a widely held but false belief or concept in reference to your use here. If you mean something else, please elaborate.

What I find interesting is that the common thread to the first two examples that qualify them as mythos is that both appeal to an external, universal source that is immutable. In framing it this way, the claimed truth or value statement becomes fixed and shielded from evaluation or revision. It is made untouchable. The downside of formulating a societal mythos in this way is it stagnates the culture in a specific point in time. It makes society resistant to the change that is necessary to keep pace with our ever growing understanding of ourselves and the Cosmos.

As to the last example, I feel you have put somewhat of a biased spin on it. I would write it this way:

Human life has no intrinsic value or purpose other than the two imperatives inherent in all life on earth, to survive and reproduce. Humanity must envision its own value and purpose beyond these inherent imperatives. (myth free version)​

Your three examples broadly outline the evolution of society. Society starts out with values dictated by concrete concepts of anthropomorphic entities that set and enforce societal values, much like a parent to children. As society becomes more sophisticated and better understands the workings of the world, the external source of values becomes more abstract, yet still external to humanity and immutable. Finally, we evolve to the stage where we accept that we have been setting values for ourselves since the beginning and take full and conscious ownership of the responsibility.

In addition, we need common narratives to unite diverse people. These may be religion, patriotism, political ideologies, etc. but they can't work as purely utilitarian transactions.

Bit of an oxymoronic statement, truth be told. You speak of uniting diverse people, yet it is the very institutions you list that prevent or inhibit unity, unless it is your intention or goal that all of humanity fall under one religion, one state, under a unified political system.

I suppose I should ask for clarification of what you mean by purely utilitarian transactions and what it would look like in practice, examples.

Does your use of utilitarian refer to Utilitarianism, which in general terms means that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority?

 

[MikeF]

" What about the term 'theism'. "

Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Skepticism etc and the like are the terms of Philosophy, not of the truthful Religions; instead we us Believers and Non-believers, please. Right?

Regards

If you were following my conversation with Augustus, my point wasn't about religion and theism specifically. Augustus took the position that one could not apply the term religion to beliefs held by ancient peoples because they did not have a similar term or similar concept in their culture. I then chose another word that I felt strongly Augustus did not have an issue applying to ancient peoples despite their most likely not having a similar term themselves.

My hope was to illustrate for Augustus that his objection to applying the term religion to belief systems of ancient cultures because those cultures did not have the word religion, was a weak argument.

 

[dybmh]

That's how it's generally defined.

If you disagree, please point out one thing that:

- isn't a community, and
- is generally accepted as a religion.

Just one. Any one.

Solitary LHP practitioners
Solitary Daoist cultivator

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Solitary LHP practitioners
Solitary Daoist cultivator

They're both part of their respective communities by participating in their community's traditions. They'll also often participate in communal activities with other members of their community, even if infrequently.

"Community" doesn't have to mean "the group of people who I meet with weekly in the same physical space."

Try again.

 

[dybmh]

They're both part of their respective communities by participating in their community's traditions. They'll also often participate in communal activities with other members of their community, even if infrequently.

"Community" doesn't have to mean "the group of people who I meet with weekly in the same physical space."

Try again.

That's simply not true for either of these two examples. You don't know what you don't know.

 

[dybmh]

@9-10ths_Penguin ,

I started a thread to see what LHP folks think about your definition:

LHP: Is a community needed??

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They're both part of their respective communities by participating in their community's traditions. They'll also often participate in communal activities with other members of their community, even if infrequently.

"Community" doesn't have to mean "the group of people who I meet with weekly in the same physical space."

Try again.

I have no community whatsoever, because I have some many individual particularities for how I understand the world, that I am in effect my own worldview and thus my own religion.
In other words because I am syncretic for different traditions for science, philosophy and religion I have in effect no standard religion, that you can find in one book for one community.

Not that I am better or any of that nonsense. I am simply so neuro diverse, that I don't fit in any traditional community.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin ,

I started a thread to see what LHP folks think about your definition:

LHP: Is a community needed??

Great - a whole thread about you missing the point.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Great - a whole thread about you missing the point.

There is no point to miss as there is no fact of what makes a religion a religion. It is all different kinds of understanding. So you missed the point.

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
I do not think I can accept this definition of myth. If a story or narrative is true, then it is not a myth.​

Let's use the term mythos then to remove the negative connotations.

Something being broadly true can easily form part of a mythos. We select, curate and frame aspects of the truth to construct a narrative.
For example:

"BLM rioters killed dozens, burned and looted cities and caused billions in damages while ruining the lives of many people from black and minority communities. This does not bode well for the future."

"It was inspirational to see hundreds of thousands of people of all races, the overwhelming majority peaceful and well behaved, coming together to fight the evil of racism and call for social justice and a more tolerant and fair society. This points to a brighter future."

Both of those are more or less true, yet are framed very differently to be fully consistent with opposing ideological systems. We perceive and frame parts of reality and construct narratives that suit our purpose and that of the group we identify with.

There is no neutral observation of reality, how we perceive it is based on the mythos we consciously and implicitly hold.

I agree that there is no completely neutral observation of reality as subjective individuals. However, utilizing intersubjective corroboration enables some separation of objective from subjective and permits a more objective view overall. Over time and with the contribution of many, many subjective observations, the objective picture becomes continually clearer.

As to the use of myth and mythos, I feel they are essentially synonymous. If we take these terms to their most broad usage, we fall to Mikkel’s definition of myth: a widely held but false belief or concept. This works for beliefs or concepts that are held to be objectively true, but are not. Myth and mythos cannot be applied to beliefs or concepts that are purely subjective though. An individual's subjective values or wants are neither right or wrong, simply true for that individual under their current conditions.

For example, if 30% of people say blue is the best color in the light spectrum, that means 70% disagree. Is the belief that the color blue is best a myth? Hopefully you agree that it is not.

This then would necessitate that we find a word that represents purely subjective belief or concept sets. If you have a good suggestion, please share it. For now, I will simply use the phrase 'subjective value' in single quotes as a placeholder.

If we can agree on this then we can see that the two examples you provide above represent differing views based on 'subjective value', not on myth.

Of course, as with anything related to human behavior, things are rarely black or white. Belief or concept sets can be a mix of fact, myth, and 'subjective value'. An adage comes to mind that states the most effective propaganda uses a combination of truths, half-truths, and lies. Being forewarned is being forearmed as they say, such that we can make an effort to tease out the fact, myth, and 'subjective value' of belief or concept sets.

Applying the term myth to all social constructs obfuscates the reality of all that is involved. I think we can do better.

 

[Augustus]

Bit of an oxymoronic statement, truth be told. You speak of uniting diverse people, yet it is the very institutions you list that prevent or inhibit unity, unless it is your intention or goal that all of humanity fall under one religion, one state, under a unified political system.

IMO, this is probably the single most important misunderstanding that underpins many humanistic ideologies.

These things are not divisive they are the among the most unifying things in human history. They can only be seen as divisive if we start with the assumption that people are naturally united until something divides us.

Humans evolved in small groups, and only were able to form larger and more complex societies due to things like religions and ethnic/national identities. The idea we can keep on ever expanding our in group until it contains all of humanity is palpable nonsense.

Simply being the same species doesn't engender a sense of loyalty and brotherhood, and our sense of self is as much defined by who we are not as by who we are.

There are genetic and structural limits to how united our species can be, and those who are happy to see a decline in the traditional unifying forces thinking they will be replaced by global harmony will likely be very disappointed.

I suppose I should ask for clarification of what you mean by purely utilitarian transactions and what it would look like in practice, examples.

Does your use of utilitarian refer to Utilitarianism, which in general terms means that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority?

You need myths to bind people into a community.

Studies have shown immigration into a community reduces the level of social trust and thus support for things like welfare that are based on community solidarity.

To improve social cohesion, these outsiders need a way to become 'us'. For example, an inclusive ideology like the American Dream and similar things allows diverse people to become a community. Diverse people can all become American patriots and find a high level of acceptance.

In a nation where community membership is defined by ethnicity of genealogy, outsiders cannot easily become good community members.

A transactional approach that doesn't rely on myth would need to be something like 'immigrants are good for the economy, here are some stats...'. It will not prove effective against competing myths as, in general, humans are less persuaded by facts than they are by stories (not to mention 'facts' are often disputed).

For clarity it is my assumption that mythos simply means a widely held but false belief or concept in reference to your use here. If you mean something else, please elaborate.

No, it's just a series of narratives that underpin a worldview and are not the neutral presentation of objective fact. What matters are the principles

it communicates, not whether or not it is broadly true or false

These are the stories that explain why we hold the values we do, why things are the way they are and what out vision for the future is.

As it stands currently, people are doing things through the rational and/or irrational evaluation of self-interest. Self-interest will be at work in every societal approach.

You must concede that *any* societal approach will only survive as long as people accept its utility in the face of competing narratives, or unless a segment of the population has sufficient power to maintain stability with the societal approach of their choosing.

As to a transactional society, is that not the foundation of Social Contract Theory as espoused by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau? I do not see the political systems that emerged from this philosophy as being particularly fragile.

People are driven by emotion

All societies contain transactional aspects, but no society is purely transactional. They are all dependent on some form of unifying narrative that people buy into.

On a divisive issue, I could have all the facts in the world and neutrally present people with reams of data, but without a narrative of my own, I would lose to any well crafted myth.

Applying the term myth to all social constructs obfuscates the reality of all that is involved. I think we can do better.

They are they why more than the what.

A country is not a myth, but its origin story, national character, heroes, triumphs and disasters are.

What obfuscates is artificially separating belief systems and their underlying myths into "religious" and "not religious", often with the implicit premise that the religious are 'irrational', 'primitive' or 'bad' and the secular are 'rational', 'progressive' and 'good'. This is itself a myth, basically a secular theodicy and salvation narrative: good humans do evil because religions have corrupted them and made them irrational, if we get rid of these we can all be rational and live in harmony.

For example, if 30% of people say blue is the best color in the light spectrum, that means 70% disagree. Is the belief that the color blue is best a myth? Hopefully you agree that it is not.

This is a statement of opinion.

Myths tend to explain situations with regard to normative desires, justify values, etc.

What I find interesting is that the common thread to the first two examples that qualify them as mythos is that both appeal to an external, universal source that is immutable. In framing it this way, the claimed truth or value statement becomes fixed and shielded from evaluation or revision. It is made untouchable. The downside of formulating a societal mythos in this way is it stagnates the culture in a specific point in time. It makes society resistant to the change that is necessary to keep pace with our ever growing understanding of ourselves and the Cosmos.

The 2nd one is just an expression of a standard secular humanist principle.

Also, IMO, resistance to change is good as otherwise you rush into faddish, silver bullet solutions that don't deliver what they promise. The ideal society had resistance to change, just not a refusal to change.

Most new ideas are ****, only a handful will stand the test of time The default heuristic should be anything that has remained in place for a long time most likely serves a purpose that has enabled it to survive. While things do become obsolete, we should be cautious regarding such things as we may end up making things worse.

The idea is expressed by Chesterton's fence:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

As to the last example, I feel you have put somewhat of a biased spin on it. I would write it this way:

Human life has no intrinsic value or purpose other than the two imperatives inherent in all life on earth, to survive and reproduce. Humanity must envision its own value and purpose beyond these inherent imperatives. (myth free version)

This changes the point. It is not stating a value.

Your 'must' is also prescriptive, to justify this you need to create a mythos as to why people should want to do this. You can state a principle without myth, you can't justify why it is normatively desirable without (at least in most cases).

Also the imperative is on the individual or group to survive, it doesn't operate at the level of the species. "Humanity" is also a mythical concept born largely of monotheism. There is no humanity, but human as individuals and groups with competing and often incompatible needs and wants.

If you want to justify our responsibilities to unrelated people and their progeny, especially when they go against our self-interest, then you utilise myth/narrative.

Your three examples broadly outline the evolution of society. Society starts out with values dictated by concrete concepts of anthropomorphic entities that set and enforce societal values, much like a parent to children. As society becomes more sophisticated and better understands the workings of the world, the external source of values becomes more abstract, yet still external to humanity and immutable. Finally, we evolve to the stage where we accept that we have been setting values for ourselves since the beginning and take full and conscious ownership of the responsibility.

I'd say the above is a myth.

It was articulated as the law of three stages by Auguste Comte, who though we could create a science of everything.

The problem is humans aren't rational and are impacted far more by emotions and intuitions than they are facts, reason and evidence.

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
I would agree that we have inherited many social constructs that were born, based, or justified in myths. That does not mean that we cannot recognize them for what they are, set aside the myth, and treat them as useful social constructs, as agreements between people. Nor does it mean we cannot set them aside entirely, if we choose.
In that same regard, it is perfectly legitimate to recognize the benefits of ethical and moral constructs that were originally intertwined and justified by myth, set aside the myth and still incorporate them as social construct based on the shared perception and agreement of their value and utility. This is what I see being done in the Secular Humanism movement.​

The problem is people tend not to recognise the myths they have internalised and are reliant upon.
The conceit of the Secular Humanist position is to believe that SH is what you get when you strip away the myths and 'see the world as it is' based on the neutral application of reason. Pithily summed up by Michael Oakeshott as the rationalist 'finds it hard to believe that anyone who thinks honestly and clearly could think differently to himself'.

This was almost the default position among educated irreligious people in the West in the late 20th C: as people get more educated they discard myths and become Western style humanists. This is the inevitable march of progress.

While it was perhaps understandable to hold such a view in the late 20th C, I'd say to hold it today is akin to a creationist holding on to belief in a young earth.

For me, an intellectually honest form of secular humanism would accept it is grounded in numerous cultural contingencies that emerged in a specifically Western Christian context, and stripping away the god bit doesn't negate the reliance on this mythos. This means it is not simply the neutral application of reason that remains when one strips away myth and sees the world as it is.

If they want to create a more secular humanist world, they have to provide a more powerful mythos while accepting they are constructing a narrative to support a subjective preference that only seems 'self-evident' because of their cultural conditioning. Others who have not internalised the myths of Western society will not view the world this way.

I like your quote from Michael Oakeshott, and it is certainly a valid criticism … of philosophy and philosophers.
As human beings are imperfect, fallible creatures, the reason and intuition of the subjective individual alone is insufficient to distinguish and disentangle fact, myth, and ‘subjective value’ [see post #215 for explanation of this phrase] in belief and concept sets. That is why science emerged out of philosophy. Science is philosophy that acknowledges and accepts that humanity is imperfect and fallible, and therefore takes steps to identify those imperfections and fallibilities and actively mitigate them.

Society and culture are ever evolving systems and Secular Humanism as you describe it is only a point or stage along that evolutionary process. I fully agree that declaring a ‘subjective value’ as being self-evident is every bit a myth as any found in religion. I do not agree that we cannot wean ourselves from employing myth in our social belief and concept systems. We are already doing just that, and it is this fact that gives you concern, it seems. To me, your arguments represent a strong desire to preserve myth in social constructs and perhaps specifically Christian myths. I am beginning to see your opposition to defining religion as a manifestation of this desire to preserve myth, or certain types of myth.

I can’t say whether or not all human beings can exist myth-free. Not every human being has an identical intellectual capacity or emotional profile. If myth will always be required for some, then the goal would be to work toward a culture in which required myths are more dynamic in nature such that they adapt as required by the continuous evolution of society and culture. I would not consider religious myths dynamic, or at least anywhere near sufficiently dynamic. Perhaps dynamism in myth is a function of abstraction, the more abstract the more dynamic. I suppose only time will tell.

 

[RestlessSoul]

MikeF said: ↑
I would agree that we have inherited many social constructs that were born, based, or justified in myths. That does not mean that we cannot recognize them for what they are, set aside the myth, and treat them as useful social constructs, as agreements between people. Nor does it mean we cannot set them aside entirely, if we choose.
In that same regard, it is perfectly legitimate to recognize the benefits of ethical and moral constructs that were originally intertwined and justified by myth, set aside the myth and still incorporate them as social construct based on the shared perception and agreement of their value and utility. This is what I see being done in the Secular Humanism movement.​

I like your quote from Michael Oakeshott, and it is certainly a valid criticism … of philosophy and philosophers.
As human beings are imperfect, fallible creatures, the reason and intuition of the subjective individual alone is insufficient to distinguish and disentangle fact, myth, and ‘subjective value’ [see post #215 for explanation of this phrase] in belief and concept sets. That is why science emerged out of philosophy. Science is philosophy that acknowledges and accepts that humanity is imperfect and fallible, and therefore takes steps to identify those imperfections and fallibilities and actively mitigate them.

Society and culture are ever evolving systems and Secular Humanism as you describe it is only a point or stage along that evolutionary process. I fully agree that declaring a ‘subjective value’ as being self-evident is every bit a myth as any found in religion. I do not agree that we cannot wean ourselves from employing myth in our social belief and concept systems. We are already doing just that, and it is this fact that gives you concern, it seems. To me, your arguments represent a strong desire to preserve myth in social constructs and perhaps specifically Christian myths. I am beginning to see your opposition to defining religion as a manifestation of this desire to preserve myth, or certain types of myth.

I can’t say whether or not all human beings can exist myth-free. Not every human being has an identical intellectual capacity or emotional profile. If myth will always be required for some, then the goal would be to work toward a culture in which required myths are more dynamic in nature such that they adapt as required by the continuous evolution of society and culture. I would not consider religious myths dynamic, or at least anywhere near sufficiently dynamic. Perhaps dynamism in myth is a function of abstraction, the more abstract the more dynamic. I suppose only time will tell.

Interesting definition of science you appear to be using there. I would suggest that you are odds with much of the scientific community, if you think it’s ultimate purpose is to provide a complete understanding and description of the natural world. Whilst this was the stated aspiration of both Einstein and Stephen Hawking, they were far more ambitious in this regard than most of their peers, then and now. The sciences observe the natural world, make predictions and develop technologies based on those observations. Science allows us to manipulate nature. That it allows us to understand it at a profound, fundamental level, is incidental if it’s true at all. The empiricist - we have some proudly self proclaimed empiricists on this forum - concerns herself with what may be observed, recorded, and calibrated. The underlying, unobservable forces which move the natural world and make the universe dynamic, are theoretical and therefore speculative.

We’ve had this conversation before, I think, and you didn’t much like that suggestion as I recall. But I ask you to consider this observation of Bas Van Fraasen, “terms or concepts are theoretical - entities are observable or unobservable.” As the laws of science are theory laden, depending as much on concepts as on observation, it therefore follows that they depend on non empirical philosophy in order to give a full description of the world; physics requires a metaphysics, if it is to explain what it is that animated the natural world.

 

[MikeF]

IMO,

Interesting definition of science you appear to be using there.

I would be curious if you could actually articulate my definition of science, despite the fact that I repeat it quite often on this forum.

I would suggest that you are odds with much of the scientific community, if you think it’s ultimate purpose is to provide a complete understanding and description of the natural world.

As your statement above in no way reflects my view, I will simply leave it there.

The sciences observe the natural world, make predictions and develop technologies based on those observations. Science allows us to manipulate nature. That it allows us to understand it at a profound, fundamental level, is incidental if it’s true at all. The empiricist - we have some proudly self proclaimed empiricists on this forum - concerns herself with what may be observed, recorded, and calibrated. The underlying, unobservable forces which move the natural world and make the universe dynamic, are theoretical and therefore speculative.

I would say that you do not really understand what science is, in my opinion. Your description above is the box you place science in so as to create a shield or barrier between science and cherished beliefs you see vulnerable to it.

We’ve had this conversation before, I think, and you didn’t much like that suggestion as I recall. But I ask you to consider this observation of Bas Van Fraasen, “terms or concepts are theoretical - entities are observable or unobservable.” As the laws of science are theory laden, depending as much on concepts as on observation, it therefore follows that they depend on non empirical philosophy in order to give a full description of the world; physics requires a metaphysics, if it is to explain what it is that animated the natural world.

Well, I would disagree with Bas Van Fraasen. A term or concept, Language in its entirety, is not theoretical in and of itself, it is an abstraction, an abstract system. Human thought is an abstraction and therefore other examples of abstract systems would include Mathematics and Logic. The realm of abstraction is boundless, and so, when we create abstract systems (and they are human creations) we must set the boundaries, create the definitions, rules, properties, and characteristics that will entail each specific abstract system.

We can use the abstract system of language to label, organize, reason upon, and communicate our observations and experiences. Since language is an abstraction, the abstractions themselves are not bound by physical, material laws. That is why we can imagine ourselves flying simply by thought or create the concept of a mythical creature such as a hippogriff.

If our intention is to speak to what is existent, what is real or possible in reality, then the abstractions we use to do that must remain synthetic to reality, to correspond to the real world. Remaining synthetic to reality using abstraction requires effort and attention. Without such effort, one risks drifting into the unreal and impossible without awareness or acknowledgement that reality has been left behind.

The terms theory and theoretical are simply terms used as indicators of confidence in a concept or idea, though the terms themselves give no precise level of confidence. On a broad scale it would simply mean less than that considered fact and more than that considered a guess or a hunch.

In regards to giving a full description of the world, at this point in time it is quite impossible. With metaphysics a set of abstract concepts untethered to reality, abstraction not synthetic to the real world, it is far from contributing to the task. When at the limits of scientific inquiry, all that is left to us is to say we just don't know.

 

[RestlessSoul]

IMO,



I would be curious if you could actually articulate my definition of science, despite the fact that I repeat it quite often on this forum.



As your statement above in no way reflects my view, I will simply leave it there.



I would say that you do not really understand what science is, in my opinion. Your description above is the box you place science in so as to create a shield or barrier between science and cherished beliefs you see vulnerable to it.



Well, I would disagree with Bas Van Fraasen. A term or concept, Language in its entirety, is not theoretical in and of itself, it is an abstraction, an abstract system. Human thought is an abstraction and therefore other examples of abstract systems would include Mathematics and Logic. The realm of abstraction is boundless, and so, when we create abstract systems (and they are human creations) we must set the boundaries, create the definitions, rules, properties, and characteristics that will entail each specific abstract system.

We can use the abstract system of language to label, organize, reason upon, and communicate our observations and experiences. Since language is an abstraction, the abstractions themselves are not bound by physical, material laws. That is why we can imagine ourselves flying simply by thought or create the concept of a mythical creature such as a hippogriff.

If our intention is to speak to what is existent, what is real or possible in reality, then the abstractions we use to do that must remain synthetic to reality, to correspond to the real world. Remaining synthetic to reality using abstraction requires effort and attention. Without such effort, one risks drifting into the unreal and impossible without awareness or acknowledgement that reality has been left behind.

The terms theory and theoretical are simply terms used as indicators of confidence in a concept or idea, though the terms themselves give no precise level of confidence. On a broad scale it would simply mean less than that considered fact and more than that considered a guess or a hunch.

In regards to giving a full description of the world, at this point in time it is quite impossible. With metaphysics a set of abstract concepts untethered to reality, abstraction not synthetic to the real world, it is far from contributing to the task. When at the limits of scientific inquiry, all that is left to us is to say we just don't know.

Interesting that you accuse me of using descriptions as a means of putting things in boxes, then go on to talk about the boundaries, limitations etc, that ‘we’ must place on abstract thought.


If the purpose of abstractions of thought, be they mathematical, linguistic, or otherwise, is to help us extend the frontiers of knowledge, how can they do that if we insist they be constrained by what we already believe to be demonstrably real? We would have no Big Bang theory if theoretical physicists hadn’t created mathematical models, based on Einstein’s field equations, which have since been confirmed in part by observation. The point being that the entirely theoretical models arrived at independently by Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre came before the discovery of CMBR, and the observations of Edwin Hubble, which provided the first observable evidence in support of the theories.

Your understanding of what is meant by theory is somewhat limited btw. As well as the definition you offer above, theory refers also to those elements of scientific laws - Newton’s laws of Motion for example - which are not observable. Gravity, for example, is not observable, though accurate values can be assigned to it’s effects, using Newton’s Law of Gravitation.

Your understanding of what is meant by metaphysics is, I would suggest, similarly limited; in order not merely to measure gravity, but also to articulate it’s reality, to say what it is, an ontology is required. And metaphysics is a key component of any ontology, it is what bridges the gap between the empirical and the theoretical.