Science as a worldview is just like every other dogma

[Subduction Zone]

Can you give some examples of "the way science approaches the topic of religion".

I too get a bit tired of the "dogmatic science" claim and yet no such dogma is ever presented.

 

[Quintessence]

@dfnj - you shed light on a topic that doesn't get as much proper discussion as it should, but for better or worse that discussion becomes hampered by using a word like "dogma." For some reason, folks have some very negative reactions to that word. On top of that, there are assumptions about what that word means that aren't constant across users of that word. Further complicating matters are folks with erroneous ideas about religions and sciences, though the ignorance about religions is far and away the worser foible.

Something I want to make note of from my time when I was working as a science researcher. I think that there's a big disconnect between how the general public thinks about the sciences and how scientists think about the sciences. It's pretty much summarized with this webcomic, which I love so much I have it in my image library here:

Put another way, laypersons think that scientific findings are more absolute than they actually are, and definitely more absolute than the scientists themselves believe. Poor journalistic quality is partly to blame for this, especially poor sources that use absolutist language when they should not.

Something I want to make note of from my experiences studying and practicing religions is that I've observed there's often a misperception that religions don't change, can't revise their teachings, or are somehow necessarily dogmatic. I have trouble parsing how people can believe this, given a simple glance at the evolution of religion throughout history (or even religious diversity in general) easily demonstrates this to be in error.

 

[viole]

. People just love their dogmas!

Especially when they allow me to write this post to you. Real time and possibly over thousands of kilometers of distance.

Give me more of those dogmas please. Not those related to useless spirituality, or other deepities, if possible. Even if they look the same to you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Milton Platt]

Every dogma has a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. Anyone who is a proponent of a particular dogma will claim someone else is "insane" if they do not accept the same set of assumptions are being true without question.

When I was in my 20s I was a staunch atheist. But just for fun in usenet news groups under atheism vs Christianity I started arguing the pro-theist position. I was bored of arguing the atheist position because it was too easy. I found arguing the theist position to be much more challenging! After about 10 years of arguing the theist position a funny thing happened to me. I started to believe in my own arguments! I convinced myself which then made me go down a completely different path of trying to understand the nature of belief systems.

I've heard many atheists and scientists flame religious beliefs and religious dogmas over the years as if they themselves did not have any dogma of their own but were speaking from a position of absolute truth. I've always suspected the atheist/science dogma existed. But it's difficult to argue with really smart people over their assumptions.

People get really angry at you when you question their dogma. It's almost as if by challenging someone's dogma you are making a personal attack on the person themselves. Many people view having their dogma questioned as being an ad hominem attack.

So when I found this talk on "The Science Delusion" and I was immediately interested. It's actually a book by a scientist name Rubert Sheldrake who is widely considered to be a complete crackpot by mainstream science but an absolute genius by people who like to think outside the box. I don't accept or believe everything Sheldrake says but I absolutely love the way he makes me think outside the box.

Here is an hour long talk which is pretty much a reading of his book. The first ten minutes are absolutely brilliant in my mind. I think he really pegs the science delusion as being a dogma. Scientists are not suppose to have any dogma or bias. As Sheldrake points out, it's not the case:

Since the science delusion is just a dogma, despite its successes with gadgets and weapons, it's really no better than any other dogma. Being a slave to one dogma is no better than being a slave to any other.

Anyway, hopefully if you read this post you are open minded enough to at least watch the first 10 minutes of the video. Of course, if you are an atheist/scientist blind to your own dogma then you will probably just dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and not worth your time. People just love their dogmas!

Everyone has biases. Everyone. That is why science methodology has proven to be by far the most reliable way to understand the universe around us.

 

[dfnj]

Especially when they allow me to write this post to you. Real time and possibly over thousands of kilometers of distance.
Give me more of those dogmas please. Not those related to useless spirituality, or other deepities, if possible. Even if they look the same to you.

The gadgets and weapons are great. But that's not what I was talking about in terms of dogmas.

 

[nPeace]

Every dogma has a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. Anyone who is a proponent of a particular dogma will claim someone else is "insane" if they do not accept the same set of assumptions are being true without question.

When I was in my 20s I was a staunch atheist. But just for fun in usenet news groups under atheism vs Christianity I started arguing the pro-theist position. I was bored of arguing the atheist position because it was too easy. I found arguing the theist position to be much more challenging! After about 10 years of arguing the theist position a funny thing happened to me. I started to believe in my own arguments! I convinced myself which then made me go down a completely different path of trying to understand the nature of belief systems.

I've heard many atheists and scientists flame religious beliefs and religious dogmas over the years as if they themselves did not have any dogma of their own but were speaking from a position of absolute truth. I've always suspected the atheist/science dogma existed. But it's difficult to argue with really smart people over their assumptions.

People get really angry at you when you question their dogma. It's almost as if by challenging someone's dogma you are making a personal attack on the person themselves. Many people view having their dogma questioned as being an ad hominem attack.

So when I found this talk on "The Science Delusion" and I was immediately interested. It's actually a book by a scientist name Rubert Sheldrake who is widely considered to be a complete crackpot by mainstream science but an absolute genius by people who like to think outside the box. I don't accept or believe everything Sheldrake says but I absolutely love the way he makes me think outside the box.

Here is an hour long talk which is pretty much a reading of his book. The first ten minutes are absolutely brilliant in my mind. I think he really pegs the science delusion as being a dogma. Scientists are not suppose to have any dogma or bias. As Sheldrake points out, it's not the case:

Since the science delusion is just a dogma, despite its successes with gadgets and weapons, it's really no better than any other dogma. Being a slave to one dogma is no better than being a slave to any other.

Anyway, hopefully if you read this post you are open minded enough to at least watch the first 10 minutes of the video. Of course, if you are an atheist/scientist blind to your own dogma then you will probably just dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and not worth your time. People just love their dogmas!

Creative; Informative; Useful; I like.

So truthful.

People get really angry at you when you question their dogma. It's almost as if by challenging someone's dogma you are making a personal attack on the person themselves. Many people view having their dogma questioned as being an ad hominem attack.

Exactly! I have been trying to point this out on numerous occasions, but those people never listen. They feel that their ridicule somehow has an effect on their target. Not realizing that the person is just pointing out their blind arrogance.

Like when I looked at this video with Richard Dawkin Speculating on how the eye could have evolved.
From the beginning of the video to the end, the man said, "May have" "Could have" "Might have" "Probably".
I said the man is speculating, and was accused of trying to insult the man, and behaving badly.

I spoke of the assumptions used to validate theories, and they start throwing their insults about how ignorant I am to science.
When I again try to show them their blind arrogance, they act like they egos just reached heaven.

The video was quite thought-provoking though - especially the thoughts on memory and the mind.
Very interesting indeed.

Anyway, hopefully if you read this post you are open minded enough to at least watch the first 10 minutes of the video. Of course, if you are an atheist/scientist blind to your own dogma then you will probably just dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and not worth your time. People just love their dogmas!

Nice conclusion.

 

[Willamena]

The topic of the video is scientism, not science. They are not the same thing.

I agree with him about scientism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The topic of the video is scientism, not science. They are not the same thing.

I agree with him about scientism.

Far too often the fundamentalist Christian accuses those that accept reality of "scientism". They can't deal with the fact that apes are their cousins. They can't stand the fact that the first two books of the Bible have very very little to do with reality. Though I am an atheist that does not mean that I demand that everything can only be explained by the sciences. I merely realize that much much more can be explained by the sciences than various believers of theism or even "woo woo" than those that take their holy books literally do.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that science can/does attempt to explain everything. As far as I am aware, science claims no such thing. For example, when you go to the doctor, unless you have something very common that they can instantly treat, you will often be told that we don't know a lot about such and such but this treatment may prove beneficial. #AllLabRatsMatter

Edit: Maybe when we get over our collective penchant for overthinking the wrong ideas we might just find we have more time to focus on things that truly matter.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that science can/does attempt to explain everything. As far as I am aware, science claims no such thing. For example, when you go to the doctor, unless you have something very common that they can instantly treat, you will often be told that we don't know a lot about such and such but this treatment may prove beneficial. #AllLabRatsMatter

I would change your post a bit. Scientists do often try to explain everything, but they are also quick to admit what they cannot explain at the current time. Much more will be explained by the sciences in the future, but it is all but guaranteed that there will always be unanswered questions. And most want the sciences to explain more and more. Those that tend to accuse others of "scientism" only do so because their particular beliefs have been shown to be wrong. Scientist may try to explain everything using science that does not mean that they claim everything can be explained that way. But unless we attempt to explain phenomena we will never be able to.

 

[YmirGF]

I would change your post a bit. Scientists do often try to explain everything, but they are also quick to admit what they cannot explain at the current time. Much more will be explained by the sciences in the future, but it is all but guaranteed that there will always be unanswered questions. And most want the sciences to explain more and more. Those that tend to accuse others of "scientism" only do so because their particular beliefs have been shown to be wrong. Scientist may try to explain everything using science that does not mean that they claim everything can be explained that way. But unless we attempt to explain phenomena we will never be able to.

I was fortunate enough to learn, at a relatively young age, that it's not the answers that are important, it's the ability to ask better questions that will lead to better answers. For me, for the most part, science does that nicely. Theistic mumbo-jumbo, not so much.

 

[exchemist]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea that science can/does attempt to explain everything. As far as I am aware, science claims no such thing. For example, when you go to the doctor, unless you have something very common that they can instantly treat, you will often be told that we don't know a lot about such and such but this treatment may prove beneficial. #AllLabRatsMatter

Edit: Maybe when we get over our collective penchant for overthinking the wrong ideas we might just find we have more time to focus on things that truly matter.

Agreed.

For a start, science is concerned only with explanations of the observed behaviour of nature, whereas there is plenty more in human experience besides that. And then science makes no claim to explain everything in nature. If it did, there would be no more science left to do.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually science is NOT just like everything else. Science has given us results, such as modern medicine which has lengthened our lives and reduced pain and suffering, and technology which has made our lives easier.

I would also say that Judeo-Christianity has given us western democracy and human rights as others in this forum have pointed out (thank you to them).

 

[ecco]

I would also say that Judeo-Christianity has given us western democracy and human rights as others in this forum have pointed out (thank you to them).

I don't believe the Magna Carta and the US Constitution were implemented by Jewish Rabbis or Christian Popes/Priests.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't believe the Magna Carta and the US Constitution were implemented by Jewish Rabbis or Christian Popes/Priests.

US Declaration of Independence:
"All men... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."
This does have its roots in Torah, which the Christian West adopted.

The interesting thing about grounding human rights in God rather than the State is that while a State can violate them, it can never take them away.

 

[Bear Wild]

Actually science is NOT just like everything else. Science has given us results, such as modern medicine which has lengthened our lives and reduced pain and suffering, and technology which has made our lives easier.

I would also say that Judeo-Christianity has given us western democracy and human rights as others in this forum have pointed out (thank you to them).

Judeo-Christianity gave us absolute rule under kings with no democracy. The people who wrote our constitution did not see all people created equal as the words would imply as evidenced by the fact that the one who wrote those words was a slave holder. Our democratic history shows that Native Americans were not consider equal. Science has shown more that Judeo-Christianity that we are more alike than we are different.

 

[gnostic]

I would also say that Judeo-Christianity has given us western democracy and human rights as others in this forum have pointed out (thank you to them).

The ancient Greeks gave us western democracy, particularly Athens, not the Jewish Tanakh, nor the Christian gospels.

Athens wasn’t the only citystate with democracy, but it certainly was the most prominent one at that time.

Rome had some democracy in their Republic system form of government.

Although, the highest office of that time were two annually elected consuls, they cannot do everything they like, since many of any consul’s proposed policy have to wait for the Senate (seats filled with former consuls) to vote, if such policy can pass. A third group, can veto the policy of consul or policy of the senate, by the plebeian-elected tribunes, who acted for the interests of the ordinary citizens.

The Roman senate and the tribunes, sort of reminds me of Australia’s House Of Senate and House of Representatives that can squash many policies of the current prime minister.

There are no ancient Jewish or Christian governments that have anything like democracy. The kings of Judah and Israel, can sentence any subject, to death, without a trial. Prophets can order kings to massacre whole nation on the whim of the prophet or more precisely the whim of the God that the prophet supposedly speak for (eg Samuel and King Saul, regarding to the Amalekites).

 

[Milton Platt]

Every dogma has a set of assumptions that are considered to be true without any proof. Anyone who is a proponent of a particular dogma will claim someone else is "insane" if they do not accept the same set of assumptions are being true without question.

When I was in my 20s I was a staunch atheist. But just for fun in usenet news groups under atheism vs Christianity I started arguing the pro-theist position. I was bored of arguing the atheist position because it was too easy. I found arguing the theist position to be much more challenging! After about 10 years of arguing the theist position a funny thing happened to me. I started to believe in my own arguments! I convinced myself which then made me go down a completely different path of trying to understand the nature of belief systems.

I've heard many atheists and scientists flame religious beliefs and religious dogmas over the years as if they themselves did not have any dogma of their own but were speaking from a position of absolute truth. I've always suspected the atheist/science dogma existed. But it's difficult to argue with really smart people over their assumptions.

People get really angry at you when you question their dogma. It's almost as if by challenging someone's dogma you are making a personal attack on the person themselves. Many people view having their dogma questioned as being an ad hominem attack.

So when I found this talk on "The Science Delusion" and I was immediately interested. It's actually a book by a scientist name Rubert Sheldrake who is widely considered to be a complete crackpot by mainstream science but an absolute genius by people who like to think outside the box. I don't accept or believe everything Sheldrake says but I absolutely love the way he makes me think outside the box.

Here is an hour long talk which is pretty much a reading of his book. The first ten minutes are absolutely brilliant in my mind. I think he really pegs the science delusion as being a dogma. Scientists are not suppose to have any dogma or bias. As Sheldrake points out, it's not the case:

Since the science delusion is just a dogma, despite its successes with gadgets and weapons, it's really no better than any other dogma. Being a slave to one dogma is no better than being a slave to any other.

Anyway, hopefully if you read this post you are open minded enough to at least watch the first 10 minutes of the video. Of course, if you are an atheist/scientist blind to your own dogma then you will probably just dismiss it out of hand as irrelevant and not worth your time. People just love their dogmas!

You need to list some of the dogma if you want to discuss it. I can't think of any dogma related to the scientific methodologies.

 

[Milton Platt]

The gadgets and weapons are great. But that's not what I was talking about in terms of dogmas.

Are you going to list the dogmas you say exist, or just abandon the thread and tuck your tail between your legs and run?

 

[gnostic]

A “dogma” is two words concatenated into one:

So “dog” means “canine”.
And “ma” is a Chinese word for “horse”.

So together it is “doghorse”, sort of like catfish or bulldog.



It is a joke.

ed: ok, ok, it was an awful joke.