Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Thoughts on terminology re  Science ‘vs’ Religion


Forums Forums General Discussion Thoughts on terminology re  Science ‘vs’ Religion

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 48 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #313502
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    @3point14rat

     

     

    Thanks!

    This forum is a testing ground for stuff I will be blogging about and writing about for publication. So it’s important for me to know if my writing is clear or not.

     

    #313504
    3point14rat
    Participant

    I don’t think you you ever responded to my post a few weeks ago, showing that you overestimate the share of Americans who reject evolution. Did you?

    Sorry, no.

    It is one of the many posts I have missed. My participation is only at work when I can squeeze in the time. I don’t use a computer at home, so lots goes on that I’m not aware of.

    Your stats on religiosity amongst scientists is surprising and disappointing. Maybe I assumed my rural Alberta experience was the exception rather than the rule, especially in those with more education. Lots of interesting data in those graphs.

    So, Rat, ask yourself — is it worth alienating 96% of Americans while addressing the 18% of them who oppose evolution?

    As wrong as I tend to be on this topic, I still think that the majority of regular people put so little thought into their beliefs around science, evolution and stuff like that, that their answers can’t be considered ‘informed’.

    I see more benefit than harm in letting people know they’re wrong, as long as you do it with patience and good humor (both of which I start out with, but tend to fail at when the other side is excessively close-minded.) If someone is offended by something as simple as evolution, it’s unlikely there was ever going to be a conversation with them anyways.

    I see a few places where my answers aren’t that in line with your question (I only skimmed your post and missed a few things), but work calls. We can keep working on this.

    #313508
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    Argh!! In moderation

    Seemed like fewer false moderations today, but I think people are wary of posting links. There were 4 or 5 real spams that got caught too, if that makes you feel any better.

    #313515
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    This is a talk by Dan Dennett that got me thinking about the idea of being nice to believers. The talk hasn’t changed, but I keep hearing different things in it when I re-listen. Obvious Spoiler Alert: He doesn’t really provide good reasons for believing, but he talks about why people do. In a simple list, fear, love, guilt, witnessing and metaphor. The first three are pretty obvious, if you live in Afghanistan, you should probably go along with believers, if not, it’s still good to be nice to grandma and not hurt her feelings, or there is still social pressure.

    He gets a bit deeper into the psychology when talking about the con games currently played, like the deference you’re supposed to give to someone who has had a personal experience, or you’ll hurt their feelings, or that “punishment” is a just a metaphor, you’ll just separate yourself from the feelings of love or something. It’s more sophisticated than that, and he compares to our secular fictions, like how we once believed we needed gold to back up our currency, and some still think we do. Or worse, when people actually do lose confidence in their currency, you can get runaway inflation and collapse. He ends with an interview of Dick Cheney who said, as an Empire, they make reality, and while you are all reviewing the facts, they’ll go on to make another reality. This is the real danger of sticking to non-fact based system of understanding reality.

    So, my summary of this is, we are still arguing about this idea of scientific truth being the better choice, knowing that it does not always motivate people to keep in line with the establish order. What was once adaptive is now maladaptive but we still have not adapted to living without those old ways. This is where some compassion is needed for those who are choosing between being ostracized by their communities and speaking what they know is true. They may need that support. We can set barriers and point out how their words compare to a con game, without making insulting comparisons to evil old white men.

     

    #313523
    Write4U
    Participant

    Just a musing about terminology.

    Religious God  =  that which creates reality from causal desire. Intent.

    And IMO,  causal desire (intent) is a divine personal motivation which cannot be reconciled with what we know about physics.

    Scientific Potential =  that which may become reality from latent inherent causal abilities.

    And IMO, potential ability can be reconciled with what we know about physics.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by Write4U.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 1 day ago by Write4U.
    #313526
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    @3point14rat

    If someone is offended by something as simple as evolution, it’s unlikely there was ever going to be a conversation with them anyways.

    Well, yeah. But I’m not talking about being offended by “evolution.” I’m talking about being offended by hearing oneself called “not thinking” or whatever. I am talking about tone.

    #313529
    3point14rat
    Participant

    Well, yeah. But I’m not talking about being offended by “evolution.”

    My use of “evolution” is simply mentioning the elephant in the room when it comes to the ‘conflict’

     I’m talking about being offended by hearing oneself called “not thinking” or whatever. I am talking about tone.

    Hmmm. I know what you mean, but since there’s no nice way of telling someone that they aren’t thinking properly, you might as well be suggesting we start raising unicorns.

    Maybe, since you’re an honest to goodness wordsmith, you can gently inform someone that their whole way of thinking is wrong, but that’s out of my league.

     

    #313530
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    @lausten @3point14rat

    In any communication anywhere, one needs to decide who is reading and what one is trying to achieve.

    I think there are very good reasons to condemn religious belief in general. I think the trend away from religion and toward skepticism is a good thing.

    I also think certain kinds of religion in particular are problematic in scientific debate.

    I guess I feel like I don’t need to be trying to wipe out all religion, and trying to make all people understand and accept evolution, and be doing both things simultaneously at all times.

     

    #313532
    Xain
    Participant

    The problem is that some religions claim their truths to be beyond logic and concepts, so agreeing on terms with them isn’t gonna happen.

    #313534
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    @3point14rat

    I know @lausten has tried to explain “tone” and “respect” as well.

    My entire post on the interpretation of words and phrases in discussing science & religion was an effort to make respectful communication easier. As in my example of “Atheists hate God,” I feel like if we use the wrong terms or define things the wrong way, that brings unneeded conflict into the discussion.

    The least we can do is use terms correctly. It is a first step.

    I don’t know. Maybe there is no way to phrase the debate without calling people idiots, brainless or stupid. I should probably just give up.

    #313535
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    @snowcity

    The problem is that some religions claim their truths to be beyond logic and concepts, so agreeing on terms with them isn’t gonna happen.

    I am extremely aware. Those are not the terms I’m trying to get people to agree on.

    #313537
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    @3point14rat

    Well, yeah. But I’m not talking about being offended by “evolution.”

    My use of “evolution” is simply mentioning the elephant in the room when it comes to the ‘conflict’

    Yes, I know the TOPIC may be evolution

    I am talking about the TONE of the discussion

    I need to log off for a while. I’m not getting through. My wordsmithing is a waste. I don’t know why I think I can do this. I can’t.

    #313540
    TimB
    Participant

    The breadth of and quality of posts within this thread is remarkable.

    @Write4U

    So our big U is “mathematical in essence” could explain a lot.  (It thus seems intelligent but is actually more akin to a bit of software running.)  We might be the product of an algorithm that was a product of the Big Bang.  Fascinating.

    @Tee Bryan Peneguy

    I am embarrassed by how comprehensive your answer to my meager question was.  But more than that I am impressed with your goal where you say “I’m attempting to find accurate language that won’t alienate people “on the fence” of religious deconstruction at this moment.”

    @3PointRat

    I concur with your opinion re: the whole ID v. Science thing.

    @Lausten

    That raz-pesher thing seems to be part of a repeating end times phenomenon.  It seems like a pretty dysfunctional cultural belief system, in that there is an ever-present (potentially) self-fulfilling prophecy of some society-shaking cataclysm of some sort.  Yet the pattern of raz-pesher survives somehow, culturally.  I imagine it could be due to the relative survival benefits of recognizing the end is near, when it actually is.

    But isn’t it the oldest technique of an effective narrative, to present a mystery to be revealed?  a wrong to be righted?  a threat to be averted? a problem to be solved? a challenge to be faced?

     

     

    #313542
    3point14rat
    Participant

    I need to log off for a while. I’m not getting through. My wordsmithing is a waste. I don’t know why I think I can do this. I can’t.

    No. You don’t. I agree with you in every way, I just don’t know how it is possible to attain your lofty goal.

    It is very rare to find someone who starts a dialogue with messages intentionally designed to insult. In fact, I know of no writer better than Sam Harris at arguing a point using words that seem impossible to result in insult or injury, yet somehow people manage to feel insulted and injured by him.

    Not many people are able to communicate at the level of Sam, so if he’s unable to do it, I honestly don’t know how I can. That’s not to say I don’t try my darndest to, but it does make me look at the situation realistically and understand that if the options are to either possibly hurt someone’s feelings or not speak, I (and hopefully all people) will choose to speak and take the chance of hurting someone’s feelings.

     

    P.S.- Rather than doubt your writing skills, you might want to doubt my ability to understand. That’s most likely what has happened.

     

     

    #313543
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    @timb

     

    But isn’t it the oldest technique of an effective narrative, to present a mystery to be revealed?  a wrong to be righted?  a threat to be averted? a problem to be solved? a challenge to be faced?

    I think all narratives come down to “survive.”

    Us against them.

    Right against wrong.

    Plenty against scarcity.

    Birth against death.

    Safety against danger.

    Every mystery, story and dogma boils down to survival against something or someone.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 48 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.