Discussing The Differences Between How Science Informs Us VS How Religions "Inform" Us.
[As usual, this blog is being written in reply to a discussion on the topic at hand.
As such, that larger discussion supplied the talking points which I am here responding to]
re
--
Let's seriously consider this point.
Life-experience accumulates data-points that we use to estimate probabilities.
Granted, that ongoing process involves a great deal of subjectivity; for everyone.
Science attempts, with great and proven degrees of success, to filter out as much subjective bias as we're able.
However, ...
religions don't actually empower us to to identify facts objectively.
Instead, religions interject wild fantasties
based on wild rumors;
while claiming "these are facts".
Related to that, they make every effort to foster magical thinking;
reducing participants' ability to distinguish reality from fantasy in other domains of the human experience. [Link]
Going much further than that,
Literally-interpreted Abrahamic religions
attempt to maximize the Carrot and the Stick;
to bribe and coerce compliance.
They also attempt to instill Authoritarian values
as a general guiding principal.
That has, of course, resulted in many historically signficant mass-tragedies.
They also attempt to take unethical advantage of vulnerable people's emotional and cognitive vulnerabilities;
using proven-useful ways to covertly manipulate perceptions, values, and identity.
Meanwhile, they continue to push divisive identity-narrative polemics,
as a way to further manipulate in-group members to remain in group;
-causing human families and societies to remain significantly more divided than we'd otherwise be.
In other words, they came not to foster peace; but to bring a sword of division between us.
---
---
The scientific method doesn't do any of that.
It's just simply the best methodology available to us for accumulating understanding of physics;
within the unfortunate limits of
our access to knowledge.
Meanwhile, the problem of Hard Solipsism does actually not negate this.
No matter how close or far we are
from correctly thinking and correctly understanding anything, ...
Scientific methodology
continues to be
what we have countless reasons to regard as
the single best available methodology to use;
within the limits of our mental abilities and perceptions.
To whatever extent our cognitive processes and perceptions might be wrong, ...
oh well.
They just are.
All we can do is to keep pushing past every frustrating barrier, with the best of our abilities, within the limits of our perceptions.
Appealing to the IDEA of a Super-Dad who reassures us that we're "on the right path" (about anything at all)
doesn't help.
In fact, is often sabotages such efforts.
---
---
Let's also not OVERLOOK the irony
of a hypothetical "God"
being needed to VALIDATE our perceptions of what's real-vs-unreal, and good-vs-bad, and our methodology for assessing those things...
while hoping we don't notice that our best available cognitions and methodologies
refute the very narratives that Christians (and other religions) are claiming as true.
We need a "God" to authorize us
to use our best available mental faculties,
in order to justify good confidence in the data-collection and logic which are made possible by those faculties,
which inevitably debunk him?
To this, a presuppositional-ist would say "But that's the BEAUTY of it!"
If we truly ASSUME GOD, we immediately adopt a pro-God bias.
The moment we HAVE that bias,
a common flaw in the human psyche (confirmation bias)
will then filter all data through that lense;
preventing us from making full use of our mental faculties in all related endeavors (the very thing they would have us pray to their GOD for confidence in);
preventing people (anyone who falls for it) from being ABLE to realize that our best available data-collection and logic debunks him.
That's the gimmick.
---
---
---
Meanwhile, ...
If we already HAD any specific confidence about any specific facet of our perceptions and/or methods, ...
then what have we gained, to imagine a Super-Dad who endorses any of it?
If we indulge in such presuppositionalist fantasies, ...
then what have we gained, to imagine a Super-Dad who endorses any of it?
If we indulge in such presuppositionalist fantasies, ...
We haven't gained a new method.
We've merely corrupted the method we had.
We haven't gained new tools.
We've merely damaged the tools we have.
We haven't even even made headway harmonizing humanity.
Instead, we would become active agents; weaponized against humanity, in their religion's global racketeering scheme and destructive culture-war.
At best, we just end up feeling ... personally re-assured.
However,
most of us don't feel such a child-minded need to BE redundantly assured by a Parent about our every thought and step.
Adult-minded persons
would rather cooperatively and individually earn our respective points of confidence.
In contrast, it isn't actually reasonable
for any religiously child-minded person
to indulge in egocentrism;
to suppose and assert that EVERYONE needs the IDEA of a Parent to validate any-or-all our perceptions.
When they say such things, ...
That's not logic.
We've merely corrupted the method we had.
We haven't gained new tools.
We've merely damaged the tools we have.
We haven't even even made headway harmonizing humanity.
Instead, we would become active agents; weaponized against humanity, in their religion's global racketeering scheme and destructive culture-war.
At best, we just end up feeling ... personally re-assured.
However,
most of us don't feel such a child-minded need to BE redundantly assured by a Parent about our every thought and step.
Adult-minded persons
would rather cooperatively and individually earn our respective points of confidence.
In contrast, it isn't actually reasonable
for any religiously child-minded person
to indulge in egocentrism;
to suppose and assert that EVERYONE needs the IDEA of a Parent to validate any-or-all our perceptions.
When they say such things, ...
That's not logic.
It's just tragic.
Meanwhile,
they may feel that appealing to Parental Endorsement
solves the problem of Hard Solipsism.
But it doesn't.
It simply pretends to solve that problem, with an inflated sense of reassurance;
- which they are gifting to their SELF,
while pretending they are getting that from an infallible Parent.
Moreover,
when they try to insist that everyone who DOESN'T do that ... should severely doubt all our perceptions, methods, values, and narratives,
and give greater weight to the religious person's perceptions merely because (they claim) Super-Dad vouched for their perceptions, methods, values, etc.. ...
ALL OF THAT
is really a case of strategically orchestrated
gas lighting.
And that is exactly what we should expect
from sociopolitical cults modeled on Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
It's an attempt to seek, find, worsen, and exploit
any possible doubts within us;
in order to help them gain exploitative power over us as authorities over our minds.
In part, they're attempting to feed their own egos.
It's also a means of seeking mental-refuge from their own fears and doubts.
Zooming out, to see the bigger picture of what really happening there, ...
It's also designed to help them make desperate headway in the larger Orwellian culture-war;
which their respective *rival
(*but begrudgingly networked) mafias still expect to win.
Meanwhile, ...
Religious narratives
and religious methodology
didn't find ways to create safe housing to protect us from the elements.
They also didn't really help us harness electricity,
create computers,
launch satellites,
create real-time global communications,
nor cure or vaccinate any of humanity's diseases.
Nor were they helpful in developing treatments for accidental poisonings due to kids and adults mistaking a poisonous food-source or water-source as safe;
- in a world where no "God" color-coded food and water to indicate degrees of being safe for consumption.
Evolution gave us a mixed bag of wonderful abilities and tragic failings.
Religion helped distant ancestors survive and thrive, in some ways.
However,
religions later became increasingly a force of sabotage in our collective efforts to mature;
into much greater abilities to survive and thrive.
It's long past time for those training wheels to come off.
In fact, humanity won't exist much longer, if harmonizing progress (towards collective secular adulthood) doesn't start happening at a much faster collective rate.
---------------------
Re:
"For us today to say there is no being more powerful than us that could represent some sort of Deity. That just sounds like the definition of ignorance."
--
My thoughts about that:
* Science doesn't take a position about whether or not some Super-Powered-Being(s) exist(s).
* If any such beings exist,
and if they realize we exist,
and if they care to be realized by us,
then they're free to show up and say "Hi"
and then demonstrate whatever power or personal traits they might wish to be known for.
Until then, such religions are being fantastically speculative;
and yet,
not honest enough to admit it.
Worse yet, those speculations are typically part of a package deal where everyone is given a "friendly warning" that we better "choose to believe" their claims "or else" (insert various dire threats here).
*The early Stoics rejected all such propositions.
What they called "God" was:
not that.
They heard what the Jews (and eventually Christians) were saying about it all.
The early Stoics' response to them was essentially the same as mine:
Meanwhile, ...
*Just like the Stoics,
I do not subscribe to authoritarian values.
* I reject the idea that "Might Makes Right".
Nothing worthy of MY reverent regard
would function/relate on such a principle.
But you're still free to have lower standards.
Diverging from the Stoics (where we start to disagree), ...
* I'm also anti-impressed with how badly wired our genetics are, how poorly functional our bodies are, how absurdly dangerous our environment is, and how much suffering exists because of these things.
If all that was intelligently designed/purposed by a Super-Powered-Being, ...
they are evil, insane, and/or disastrously unqualified.
Thus, ...
* No matter WHO
or
no matter WHAT accounts for ~all that is~, ...
it will never be "god" to me.
To further clarify what I mean by that:
If any such entities
someday reveal themselves in the sky (which neither I nor Stoics believe exist), ...
I would change into believing ~about them~ whatever they might sufficiently demonstrate.
But I still wouldn't adopt such a worshipful/reverent regard for them.
Why not?
For the same reason the Sun in the sky,
despite existing,
and despite being very powerful,
and despite being necessary for all sentient life on this planet, ...
is not something I would ever choose to designate as my god.
But that's more than just a matter of logic.
It's also a matter of having high and healthy standards; born from self-respect.
You can worship dryer lint, for all I care.
And if you decide to, then sure;
that becomes a "god" to you.
It just still wouldn't be that for me.
Meanwhile,
they may feel that appealing to Parental Endorsement
solves the problem of Hard Solipsism.
But it doesn't.
It simply pretends to solve that problem, with an inflated sense of reassurance;
- which they are gifting to their SELF,
while pretending they are getting that from an infallible Parent.
Moreover,
when they try to insist that everyone who DOESN'T do that ... should severely doubt all our perceptions, methods, values, and narratives,
and give greater weight to the religious person's perceptions merely because (they claim) Super-Dad vouched for their perceptions, methods, values, etc.. ...
ALL OF THAT
is really a case of strategically orchestrated
gas lighting.
And that is exactly what we should expect
from sociopolitical cults modeled on Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
It's an attempt to seek, find, worsen, and exploit
any possible doubts within us;
in order to help them gain exploitative power over us as authorities over our minds.
In part, they're attempting to feed their own egos.
It's also a means of seeking mental-refuge from their own fears and doubts.
Zooming out, to see the bigger picture of what really happening there, ...
It's also designed to help them make desperate headway in the larger Orwellian culture-war;
which their respective *rival
(*but begrudgingly networked) mafias still expect to win.
Meanwhile, ...
Religious narratives
and religious methodology
didn't find ways to create safe housing to protect us from the elements.
They also didn't really help us harness electricity,
create computers,
launch satellites,
create real-time global communications,
nor cure or vaccinate any of humanity's diseases.
Nor were they helpful in developing treatments for accidental poisonings due to kids and adults mistaking a poisonous food-source or water-source as safe;
- in a world where no "God" color-coded food and water to indicate degrees of being safe for consumption.
Evolution gave us a mixed bag of wonderful abilities and tragic failings.
Religion helped distant ancestors survive and thrive, in some ways.
However,
religions later became increasingly a force of sabotage in our collective efforts to mature;
into much greater abilities to survive and thrive.
It's long past time for those training wheels to come off.
In fact, humanity won't exist much longer, if harmonizing progress (towards collective secular adulthood) doesn't start happening at a much faster collective rate.
---------------------
Re:
"For us today to say there is no being more powerful than us that could represent some sort of Deity. That just sounds like the definition of ignorance."
--
My thoughts about that:
* Science doesn't take a position about whether or not some Super-Powered-Being(s) exist(s).
* If any such beings exist,
and if they realize we exist,
and if they care to be realized by us,
then they're free to show up and say "Hi"
and then demonstrate whatever power or personal traits they might wish to be known for.
Until then, such religions are being fantastically speculative;
and yet,
not honest enough to admit it.
Worse yet, those speculations are typically part of a package deal where everyone is given a "friendly warning" that we better "choose to believe" their claims "or else" (insert various dire threats here).
*The early Stoics rejected all such propositions.
What they called "God" was:
not that.
They heard what the Jews (and eventually Christians) were saying about it all.
The early Stoics' response to them was essentially the same as mine:
Meanwhile, ...
*Just like the Stoics,
I do not subscribe to authoritarian values.
* I reject the idea that "Might Makes Right".
Nothing worthy of MY reverent regard
would function/relate on such a principle.
But you're still free to have lower standards.
Diverging from the Stoics (where we start to disagree), ...
* I'm also anti-impressed with how badly wired our genetics are, how poorly functional our bodies are, how absurdly dangerous our environment is, and how much suffering exists because of these things.
If all that was intelligently designed/purposed by a Super-Powered-Being, ...
they are evil, insane, and/or disastrously unqualified.
Thus, ...
* No matter WHO
or
no matter WHAT accounts for ~all that is~, ...
it will never be "god" to me.
To further clarify what I mean by that:
If any such entities
someday reveal themselves in the sky (which neither I nor Stoics believe exist), ...
I would change into believing ~about them~ whatever they might sufficiently demonstrate.
But I still wouldn't adopt such a worshipful/reverent regard for them.
Why not?
For the same reason the Sun in the sky,
despite existing,
and despite being very powerful,
and despite being necessary for all sentient life on this planet, ...
is not something I would ever choose to designate as my god.
But that's more than just a matter of logic.
It's also a matter of having high and healthy standards; born from self-respect.
You can worship dryer lint, for all I care.
And if you decide to, then sure;
that becomes a "god" to you.
It just still wouldn't be that for me.
Comments
Post a Comment