Most people treat science like a religion

[NaturalBornNEET]

Whatever the truth is I don't believe it is a fact that can be written in a textbook. In the modern day facts are treated like gods. The average person only delves into science to the extent of being taught it from textbooks (scripture) in schools (churches) as a list of facts (commandments and verses). They're indoctrinated into this way of making sense of reality and don't want to change it because any change in your understanding of reality involves that reality becoming unstable which is intolerable for most people. Science is inseparable from personal psychology.

 

[DarkRange55]

I said this on here a while ago but it was part of a post on a different subject. Anyways, I agree! A lot of people today treat science as a new religion. A lot of people don't actually buy into the scientific method because they don't really know what it is. They don't believe that science will bring them the ultimate truth. They just think that science is like the new type of Christianity. Consequently they treat atheism as almost like having a religious feature now.

There's a Chinese science fiction where the author asked the question, why don't we worship deities in China anymore. China is very light on worshiping and religion. Maybe once a year we'd burn some paper money to the goddess of the land and thats it. Because agriculture production has been important for a long time. But overall we don't see the same type of worshiping behaviors or religious behaviors similar to ancient Greeks or Egyptians. And then he wrote a story basically saying, we think that there were gods but until one day a guy, in ancient Chinese history he is like China's first inventor. He had a debate with one of those gods and proved that they don't know everything. And then the gods realized humanity was mature enough and they just left. It sort of just gave a modern explanation on why we're having all these weird thoughts.

 

[Mr. Snrub]

I agree with you to the extent that it applies to militant atheism. The purpose of science is obviously not to disprove any religion and where it disproves a literal reading of a particular religious text it's completely incidental. The danger I sense with the sentiment you expressed is its potential for misuse by fundamentalists. Particularly "science is inseparable from personal psychology." No offence 'cause I know it wasn't meant this way, but that does sound like something you'd say if you were in the business of science denial.

If your religion or spirituality leads you down the path of rejecting established science then I don't think it's worth much. It shouldn't intrude on our understanding of physical reality to the point that it becomes unstable in the first place. If it does it's loony toons.

 

[NaturalBornNEET]

If your religion or spirituality leads you down the path of rejecting established science then I don't think it's worth much.

Established science should only be rejected if it deserves to be rejected, and I am definitely open to the idea that currently established ideas could be wrong, but I'm also fine with nothing science says being wrong. Science is more valid than religion because it takes more epistemic responsibility. But there is too much value placed on establishd-ness than truth seeking imo, because established-ness requires no intellectual effort and has already provided us with a comfortable cot to lie in, which is why any questioning of established science is met with backlash imo, I know it's very reductive to wave it away as just psychological factors and I know there are others I'm not accounting for but I can't ignore that a human's need for mental stability and comfort is such a corrupting bias in the finding of truth. And I can't ignore the fact that anything that has ever been experienced has been experienced through a mind which is inherently a psychological entity.

It shouldn't intrude on our understanding of physical reality to the point that it becomes unstable in the first place. If it does it's loony toons.

There it is, the dreaded "shouldn't". Probably my least favourite word because should/shouldn't is the biggest enemy of truth, the ultimate flaw of psychology and it simply does not exist beyond being a temporary outcry of human emotion. "You cannot derive an ought from an is". If physical reality is intruded upon then it is intruded upon.
I'm not denying physical reality exists in the sense that I can feel physical things and see them, why would I deny that when it's self evident. But in the sense that a humans whole narrative up until the present moment has been underlayed with consistent and predictable plot elements, like daily routines, scientific laws as a framework, conditioned shoulds and shouldnts, maybe even religion as a framework. And I believe reality is such that that can all change in an instant, that the physical world is all experienced by and therefore can never be proven to exist outside the mind. Call that loony toons if you will. But to me most people are in loony toons too, just a very sensible loony toons in a smart tuxedo with a nice bow tie.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I remember a friend who was studying one of the sciences at a more advanced level telling me the diagram/ understanding of an atom we were taught at school was wrong. That was irritating but then- perhaps understandable if it's established that a mind that age can't grasp the complexities of the (current thinking of) reality. Would we be so keen on learning things if we were also told they weren't true? What would be the point? You need to learn this formula- even if it isn't accurate!

I agree though. Surely the whole driving force behind science is the ability to question, study something and be open to changing our hypothesis based on the evidence.

Maybe we accept certain things for the sake of simplicity. But true- we should retain the underlying awareness that a lot is based on hypothesis. Still- hypothesis with a bunch of evidence still seems stronger- to my mind than blind belief.

The very act of questioning/ observing/ testing- which is what science does teach- is intrinsic. We wouldn't be doing experiements with bunsen burners in order to test for ourselves if all it was about was learning facts. They'd simply write the answers on the blackboard. Learning science in part is about applying a method of study to a question/ problem.

Maybe you're refering more to people quoting scientific 'fact'. But then, those ideas came from scientists- surely? Maybe we put too much faith that they bothered to research thoroughly before coming up with something. But then- I know I don't have the intelligence of someone like Stephen Hawking. If I had an eternity, I doubt I'd be able to work out the things he did. I'd rather put trust in him- knowing that he's highly regarded in his field rather than some random person who claims they've seen fairies. They could have been hallucinating. I had the crazziest vision last night when I just woke up. Thankfully, it doesn't happen during waking hours. But, I imagine scientists themselves will emphasize they are creating working theories.

What would you use instead to test a theory though? Can you find the answer even? Maybe that's the most annoying part. That even the best scientific approach may not yield answers to some of the big questions.

For instance- let's say God does exist but, for whatever bizarre reason, they don't want to be found. God is presumably many more times more intelligent than humans so therefore- we will potentially never find them- no matter how advanced science gets- if they don't want us to.

I imagine some things are extremely difficult to prove or disprove. We can use the scientific method and rational reasoning to produce likely models but, we may never get to the truth over some things. It's still good to try though- I think. Most especially to question dogmatic things like religion. Religion's were often written by humans. Humans have their own agenda.

I think it's important to use critical thinking whilst 'consuming' anything. But, I'd argue that the younger generations are in fact more likely to do that. With the internet came a couple of things. Availability to research. It's likely harder for politicians to do corrupt and questionnable things without the evidence being plastered all over social media.

With AI coming in, I think people will become more and more aware of fake news. So, my suspicion is that people will in fact start to question more, rather than less. Especially the motives behind being fed a certain message. Surely- to question, validate, search for authentic evidence is the scientific method in practice?

 

[Pluto]

 

[Mr. Snrub]

Established science should only be rejected if it deserves to be rejected, and I am definitely open to the idea that currently established ideas could be wrong, but I'm also fine with nothing science says being wrong. Science is more valid than religion because it takes more epistemic responsibility. But there is too much value placed on establishd-ness than truth seeking imo, because established-ness requires no intellectual effort and has already provided us with a comfortable cot to lie in, which is why any questioning of established science is met with backlash imo, I know it's very reductive to wave it away as just psychological factors and I know there are others I'm not accounting for but I can't ignore that a human's need for mental stability and comfort is such a corrupting bias in the finding of truth. And I can't ignore the fact that anything that has ever been experienced has been experienced through a mind which is inherently a psychological entity.

There it is, the dreaded "shouldn't". Probably my least favourite word because should/shouldn't is the biggest enemy of truth, the ultimate flaw of psychology and it simply does not exist beyond being a temporary outcry of human emotion. "You cannot derive an ought from an is". If physical reality is intruded upon then it is intruded upon.
I'm not denying physical reality exists in the sense that I can feel physical things and see them, why would I deny that when it's self evident. But in the sense that a humans whole narrative up until the present moment has been underlayed with consistent and predictable plot elements, like daily routines, scientific laws as a framework, conditioned shoulds and shouldnts, maybe even religion as a framework. And I believe reality is such that that can all change in an instant, that the physical world is all experienced by and therefore can never be proven to exist outside the mind. Call that loony toons if you will. But to me most people are in loony toons too, just a very sensible loony toons in a smart tuxedo with a nice bow tie.

I'm generally of the same mind as you believe it or not. I just think the that phenomenal world, that is the world as synthesized and re-produced by our nervous system, is of primary concern to us. That includes altered states. It's the only point from which we can ask any question about anything. It's the foundation of all thought. Any metaphysical claim that is mutually exclusive with it or can't be derived from it in any way is completely out of left field and shouldn't, yes shouldn't be allowed to stake its claim in our reality. See Russell's teapot.

My problem is primarily with literalist interpretations of Judeo-Christian religion which you're probably no great fan of yourself. My problem is not with the eastern traditions, esoteric religion and mysticism or philosophies like panpsychism, none of which disregard the world as we perceive it in its search for the truth of an objective reality.

"And I believe reality is such that that can all change in an instant, that the physical world is all experienced by and therefore can never be proven to exist outside the mind."

That's the only thing I'd question you further on. Outside of altered states or actually dying how could it all change in an instant?

Philosophical idealism doesn't posit that the external world could suddenly change all its rules of behaviour afaik.

 

[CTB Dream]

this ppl sy sci relig this no undrstd incmplt thrm no undrstd lng ambgy