Mocking religion

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Mocking religion

Post by shpalman » Fri Dec 24, 2021 8:26 am

Boris Johnson has invoked the teaching of Jesus Christ
... the prime minister celebrated members of the public who were “getting jabbed not just for themselves, for ourselves, but for friends and family and everyone we meet”.

“That, after all, is the teaching of Jesus Christ, whose birth is at the heart of this enormous festival – that we should love our neighbours as we love ourselves,” he said.

His words echoed the message from the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who said earlier this week: “I would say, go and get boosted, get vaccinated. It’s how we love our neighbour. Loving our neighbour is what Jesus told us to do. It’s Christmas, do what he said.”
Boris telling us what he thinks Jesus would want us to do makes me feel a bit uncomfortable for a couple of reasons.
molto tricky

User avatar
Trinucleus
Snowbonk
Posts: 573
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Trinucleus » Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:04 am

shpalman wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 8:26 am
Boris Johnson has invoked the teaching of Jesus Christ
... the prime minister celebrated members of the public who were “getting jabbed not just for themselves, for ourselves, but for friends and family and everyone we meet”.

“That, after all, is the teaching of Jesus Christ, whose birth is at the heart of this enormous festival – that we should love our neighbours as we love ourselves,” he said.

His words echoed the message from the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who said earlier this week: “I would say, go and get boosted, get vaccinated. It’s how we love our neighbour. Loving our neighbour is what Jesus told us to do. It’s Christmas, do what he said.”
Boris telling us what he thinks Jesus would want us to do makes me feel a bit uncomfortable for a couple of reasons.
Remind me what the bible says about committing adultery....

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:34 am

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass?
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Bird on a Fire » Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:37 am

shpalman wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 8:26 am
Boris Johnson has invoked the teaching of Jesus Christ
... the prime minister celebrated members of the public who were “getting jabbed not just for themselves, for ourselves, but for friends and family and everyone we meet”.

“That, after all, is the teaching of Jesus Christ, whose birth is at the heart of this enormous festival – that we should love our neighbours as we love ourselves,” he said.

His words echoed the message from the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who said earlier this week: “I would say, go and get boosted, get vaccinated. It’s how we love our neighbour. Loving our neighbour is what Jesus told us to do. It’s Christmas, do what he said.”
Boris telling us what he thinks Jesus would want us to do makes me feel a bit uncomfortable for a couple of reasons.
Well after deliberately sacrificing hundreds-thousands of people on the altar of "no restrictions before national Jesus day" at least he's bothering to emphasise the socially worthwhile bits of Jesus rather than the hollow capitalistic overconsumption of modern Christmas.
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

User avatar
warumich
Fuzzable
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm

shpalman wrote:
Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:48 pm
I'm generally enjoying the debate but I'm also trying to maintain some focus.
Ok, sorry - suppose it's sometimes a bit difficult to read tone off a post. It's just that I don't think what I'm trying to say should be that controversial.
shpalman wrote:
Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:48 pm
It feels like I've spent too much energy in here defending science, for example.
, for example - defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science, so I don't see why science needs defending, at least not from me. (As a sociologist of science I suppose I have a slightly less deferential view of it because I know that both in historical and contemporary examples science very often is not quite as rational as it likes to portray itself. But that's a different debate than what we've been having and in any case that doesn't diminish science as a whole. Or have anything to do with religion).
shpalman wrote:
Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:48 pm
Well, conjuring up a perfectly harmless person to demonstrate that a person can be perfectly harmless is also begging the question.
Begging the question because I am presupposing a premise? Do you mean the premise that perfectly harmless, non-bigoted Anglican tea lady can exist? I don't think that's too unreasonable? Or I don't understand your point at all. My point was that perfectly harmless, non-bigoted religious people exist (and they're even very common, though I didn't say that), and that therefore judging them because of what some other people of their religion have done, said or believed is not on. Not sure how that point is countered by saying that bigoted members of that religion also exist. Or maybe more likely, I really don't understand what you're saying.
shpalman wrote:
Thu Dec 23, 2021 6:48 pm
Personally I waver between two points of view. The first would be that people are what they are, and the belief systems they construct are only reflections of that, so religion itself has little influence on what sort person a person is; they'll pick the bits of the belief system which go along with what they think is right and not worry about the other bits. The second would be that groups of people can form an echo chamber which reinforces certain views beyond what an individual might have arrived at, causes them to accept beliefs which they aren't really comfortable with because it's "part of the package", and lead to an ingroup/outgroup mentality.
Well yes, it's a well known phenomenon (your second point of view), and yes peoples' beliefs are influenced by those around them and what comes as a package. What I've been trying to say is that this has nothing to do with religion - anywhere where you have clearly formed social group identity this phenomenon will manifest itself. To the extent that religions tend to be social identities that then holds true of religion as well (though, if you want to include personal idiosyncratic spiritual beliefs as religion, then this doesn't hold). But social identities form around many things that you'll be unlikely to label religion - I gave examples earlier of football and Star Trek fandom, and nationalism, we can also have social identity formed around sports you play, around your kids or "motherhood", around political parties you support, and around your profession or job (and that then includes scientist as an identity - and in fact part of my own research involved the social psychology of identity formation around scientists and how that influences their beliefs because science-identity beliefs also come as a package).

And also, being a badscience or now scrutineer member is an identity, as is the "skeptic" identity that formed around science fandom and that intersected with that of the badsciencers at least in the early days. What I see as a really scary transphobic bigotry that has developed within that group (not so much here these days, but I know plenty of ex-badsciencers who fell in with that crowd and now spout b.llsh.t Tory "freedom of speech" anti woke b.llsh.t on twitter. Most of them are really nice people, people I count(ed) as friends, but who invested in a sceptic with a k identity so wholesale that they had to take on the whole b.llsh.t transphobia along with it...

I digress, but what I meant to say is that I don't think these good people would describe themselves as religions and I would agree with that.


Anyhoo, merry Christmas everybody.
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1170
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Millennie Al » Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am

warumich wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm
defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science
This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
Gfamily
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3315
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Gfamily » Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:54 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
warumich wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm
defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science
This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).
Do you consider that you may be mistaken in your thinking? Do you have absolute rock solid evidence for everything you believe? And do you consider that you may be mistaken in your thinking?
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
warumich
Fuzzable
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:28 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
warumich wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm
defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science
This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).

bl..dy hell dude, you can't just use your own definition of a group of people just because membership is otherwise not well defined and then use your definition to mock them.

Like, there is no clear definition of what a Scottish person is (is it based on parentage? Residence?), so you just take one sh.tty stereotype as your definition (idk, a Scot has red hair and eats unhealthily), and then use your definition to mock Scottish people on an Internet forum.

And before we go on to a sidetrack discussion about Scots and deep frying, it's a bl..dy analogy. Merry Christmas 🎄
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Mocking religion

Post by shpalman » Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:57 am

In the Telegraph: some Christians who think that non-Christians are incapable of tackling moral questions. They are so convinced of their moral and intellectual superiority. What an objectionable headline.
https://t.co/wYqacDoUG0
20211225_085644.jpg
20211225_085644.jpg (82.4 KiB) Viewed 571 times
molto tricky

User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Mocking religion

Post by shpalman » Sat Dec 25, 2021 8:01 am

warumich wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:28 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
warumich wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm
defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science
This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).

bl..dy hell dude, you can't just use your own definition of a group of people just because membership is otherwise not well defined and then use your definition to mock them.

Like, there is no clear definition of what a Scottish person is (is it based on parentage? Residence?), so you just take one sh.tty stereotype as your definition (idk, a Scot has red hair and eats unhealthily), and then use your definition to mock Scottish people on an Internet forum.

And before we go on to a sidetrack discussion about Scots and deep frying, it's a bl..dy analogy. Merry Christmas 🎄
No true Scotsman?
molto tricky

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Dec 25, 2021 10:24 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
warumich wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm
defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science
This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).
You must really struggle with the huge numbers of entirely competent religious scientists, then.
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

User avatar
warumich
Fuzzable
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: Mocking religion

Post by warumich » Sat Dec 25, 2021 10:27 am

shpalman wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:57 am
In the Telegraph: some Christians who think that non-Christians are incapable of tackling moral questions. They are so convinced of their moral and intellectual superiority. What an objectionable headline.
https://t.co/wYqacDoUG0

20211225_085644.jpg

Can't argue with that tweet. What a sh.tty thing to say, can't (won't) read the telegraph, but going by the headline thats just awful. I'm not against criticism when it is justified.
No true Scotsman?
Yes that was my thinking here, or a variation of that at least
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1170
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Dec 26, 2021 1:43 am

Gfamily wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:54 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
warumich wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm
defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science
This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).
Do you consider that you may be mistaken in your thinking? Do you have absolute rock solid evidence for everything you believe? And do you consider that you may be mistaken in your thinking?
Of course. No. And of course.

But note also that if I'm wrong, and it is reasonable to believe in something regardless of evidence, then there is no reason for me not to believe in science.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1170
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Dec 26, 2021 1:46 am

warumich wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:28 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
warumich wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm
defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science
This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).

bl..dy hell dude, you can't just use your own definition of a group of people just because membership is otherwise not well defined and then use your definition to mock them.
If you can then I can too. That's the point I'm trying to get across about an agreed definition of something. You have some idea of what you mean by religion, but if you don't define it then when you desribe some property of religion people with a different definition will disagree because they don't realise they have misunderstood what you're talking about.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1170
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Dec 26, 2021 1:50 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 10:24 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).
You must really struggle with the huge numbers of entirely competent religious scientists, then.
Not in the slightest. A person can be both religious and a scientist because people are not abstract concepts. They can simultaneously believe contradictory things. A person might sincerely pray for their illness to be cured while also working scientifically for a cure. They may reconcile this contradiction by claiming that any cure they find was guided by divine inspiration, or they may refuse to consider the issue. Generally, when someone believes two contradictory things they get quite agitated if you can show them the contradiction.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Light of Blast
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Woodchopper » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:48 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Dec 26, 2021 1:46 am
warumich wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:28 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am


This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).

bl..dy hell dude, you can't just use your own definition of a group of people just because membership is otherwise not well defined and then use your definition to mock them.
If you can then I can too. That's the point I'm trying to get across about an agreed definition of something. You have some idea of what you mean by religion, but if you don't define it then when you desribe some property of religion people with a different definition will disagree because they don't realise they have misunderstood what you're talking about.
The point being made is that one can’t simply define religion because religions don’t have any shared characteristics that are exclusive to religion (aside from being called religions by some people).

We’ve been playing this game for years. Someone claims that all religions share a characteristic and then someone else points out the religions which don’t. Arguments about religion are based upon ‘facts’ which only apply to a handful of them and ignore the rest.

A systematic and rigorous approach to the subject concludes that there is very little that one can say about religion as a phenomena.

People can, of course, take a systematic and rigorous approach to examining individual religions, or sub-sets of them which do share characteristics.

User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Mocking religion

Post by shpalman » Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:42 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 10:24 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
warumich wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:01 pm
defending religion, or religious people, is not the same as attacking science
This is why I said above that if there isn't an agreed definition of something, it's impossible to have a sensible discussion about it.

For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).
You must really struggle with the huge numbers of entirely competent religious scientists, then.
The personal beliefs of a competent scientist don't matter, because the whole point of how science works is to remove subjectivity. I personally don't understand how a scientist can be objective and atheist when doing science but then in the rest of their life let those attitudes slip, but that's just me.

On the other hand, if a scientist's science is driven by their personal beliefs (for example, insisting that you're going to find a new way to date linen fibres so that you can get around the C-14 results for the age of the Shroud of Turin, or analysing Maria Valtorta's writing as if she really were channeling Jesis) then eventually they aren't really doing science anymore.
molto tricky

User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Mocking religion

Post by shpalman » Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:45 am

Woodchopper wrote:
Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:48 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Dec 26, 2021 1:46 am
warumich wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 7:28 am



bl..dy hell dude, you can't just use your own definition of a group of people just because membership is otherwise not well defined and then use your definition to mock them.
If you can then I can too. That's the point I'm trying to get across about an agreed definition of something. You have some idea of what you mean by religion, but if you don't define it then when you desribe some property of religion people with a different definition will disagree because they don't realise they have misunderstood what you're talking about.
The point being made is that one can’t simply define religion because religions don’t have any shared characteristics that are exclusive to religion (aside from being called religions by some people).

We’ve been playing this game for years. Someone claims that all religions share a characteristic and then someone else points out the religions which don’t. Arguments about religion are based upon ‘facts’ which only apply to a handful of them and ignore the rest.

A systematic and rigorous approach to the subject concludes that there is very little that one can say about religion as a phenomena.

People can, of course, take a systematic and rigorous approach to examining individual religions, or sub-sets of them which do share characteristics.
Or, someone points to a thing which has been done by a person because of their religion and there then follows an argument about whether they would have done it anyway or how according to their religion they should actually have done something else or how not every single religion in the whole world or not every single religious person in the whole world is exactly the same and therefore a single counterexample has invalidated the whole point or something.
molto tricky

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:15 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Dec 26, 2021 1:50 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 10:24 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 1:17 am
For people, such as myself, who regard religion as belief regardless of evidence and science as belief dependent on evidence, defending religion is inherently attacking science (and, of course, the reverse).
You must really struggle with the huge numbers of entirely competent religious scientists, then.
Not in the slightest. A person can be both religious and a scientist because people are not abstract concepts. They can simultaneously believe contradictory things. A person might sincerely pray for their illness to be cured while also working scientifically for a cure. They may reconcile this contradiction by claiming that any cure they find was guided by divine inspiration, or they may refuse to consider the issue. Generally, when someone believes two contradictory things they get quite agitated if you can show them the contradiction.
So they'd be simultaneously attacking science and contributing to it?
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 7863
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:20 am

Anyway, it's probaby would indeed be helpful to say which religion(s) we're talking about.

At a guess it's largely Christianity as practised in Western Europe (plus its colonies and diaspora), Islam-according-to-mass-media and a few other tidbits and factoids thrown in occasionally.

If nobody is intending to comment authoritatively on, say, Yoruba animism or Papuan ancestor-worship then there's no harm in walling them off.
You can shove your climate crisis up your arse!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door.

Millennie Al
Dorkwood
Posts: 1170
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:45 am

shpalman wrote:
Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:42 am
On the other hand, if a scientist's science is driven by their personal beliefs (for example, insisting that you're going to find a new way to date linen fibres so that you can get around the C-14 results for the age of the Shroud of Turin, or analysing Maria Valtorta's writing as if she really were channeling Jesis) then eventually they aren't really doing science anymore.
That depends on how honest the scientist is. If they are suffuciently honest with themselves, then they will either keep up a futile search until they die, or get tired searhcing, or it will break their faith. Many religious people lose their faith as a result of studying it too closely and realising it is flawed.

And the futile search for something based on prior incorrect belief is not exclusive to religion - the search for a proof of Euclid's fifth postulate has examples of that - including people who claimed to have found the proof.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
shpalman
Light of Blast
Posts: 6415
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: Mocking religion

Post by shpalman » Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:51 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:45 am
shpalman wrote:
Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:42 am
On the other hand, if a scientist's science is driven by their personal beliefs (for example, insisting that you're going to find a new way to date linen fibres so that you can get around the C-14 results for the age of the Shroud of Turin, or analysing Maria Valtorta's writing as if she really were channeling Jesis) then eventually they aren't really doing science anymore.
That depends on how honest the scientist is. If they are suffuciently honest with themselves, then they will either keep up a futile search until they die, or get tired searhcing, or it will break their faith. Many religious people lose their faith as a result of studying it too closely and realising it is flawed.

And the futile search for something based on prior incorrect belief is not exclusive to religion - the search for a proof of Euclid's fifth postulate has examples of that - including people who claimed to have found the proof.
Mathematical proof relies on a chain of logic, and it's usually clear to everyone else in the field where the flaw in the logic is in a case like that. Or, for example, there's a plenty futile search for supersymmetric particles based on the prior incorrect belief that there should be some "naturalness" in the values of the parameters in particle physics. But the experimental results are clear: there's nothing there. Theorists who refuse to give up might suggest that the particles would be just out of reach and the next generation of accelerator should see them, just as they say every time.

But what they don't do, is say "of course you can't see them, that's the point, you need to believe that they're there but you're not allowed to check" while simultaneously claiming that all of our current results exists because whatever they're claiming is true.
molto tricky

User avatar
dyqik
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Mocking religion

Post by dyqik » Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:01 pm

shpalman wrote:
Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:51 am
Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:45 am
shpalman wrote:
Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:42 am
On the other hand, if a scientist's science is driven by their personal beliefs (for example, insisting that you're going to find a new way to date linen fibres so that you can get around the C-14 results for the age of the Shroud of Turin, or analysing Maria Valtorta's writing as if she really were channeling Jesis) then eventually they aren't really doing science anymore.
That depends on how honest the scientist is. If they are suffuciently honest with themselves, then they will either keep up a futile search until they die, or get tired searhcing, or it will break their faith. Many religious people lose their faith as a result of studying it too closely and realising it is flawed.

And the futile search for something based on prior incorrect belief is not exclusive to religion - the search for a proof of Euclid's fifth postulate has examples of that - including people who claimed to have found the proof.
Mathematical proof relies on a chain of logic, and it's usually clear to everyone else in the field where the flaw in the logic is in a case like that. Or, for example, there's a plenty futile search for supersymmetric particles based on the prior incorrect belief that there should be some "naturalness" in the values of the parameters in particle physics. But the experimental results are clear: there's nothing there. Theorists who refuse to give up might suggest that the particles would be just out of reach and the next generation of accelerator should see them, just as they say every time.

But what they don't do, is say "of course you can't see them, that's the point, you need to believe that they're there but you're not allowed to check" while simultaneously claiming that all of our current results exists because whatever they're claiming is true.
There's a particular problem with all religions with a cosmogony (up to and including deism) in studying cosmology. The belief in a prime cause/creator is awkward when you are studying whether or not the universe has a beginning in any meaningful sense. If you have to give up on the time ordered flow of cause and effect, then prime causes are pretty suspect, and teleological reasoning about the universe being created just so to give rise to certain effects are right out. Obviously, beliefs in anything stronger than deism are problematic for cosmology even after the big bang.

OTOH, I don't know any religious theoretical cosmologists that strongly believe in their religion's cosmogony. And that "strongly believe in <specific tenets>" distinction is necessary, because there are plenty of people that observe a religion without believing all of the dogma and tenets of that religion. Most people are fully capable of compartmentalizing religious beliefs, political beliefs and scientific thoughts, without even thinking about the tensions between them. And much personal religious thinking is more about "contemplate the mysteries" than "this is what happened".

nezumi
Dorkwood
Posts: 1103
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:43 pm
Location: UK

Re: Mocking religion

Post by nezumi » Mon Dec 27, 2021 3:59 pm

I would like to massively oversimplify the issue in the same way I did when I was 8. I haven't thought about it an awful lot since then as I quickly did an overview of the literature* and came up with Nezumi's Principle** - "If it sounds like wishful thinking. It is."

When I think about it that way, it's no longer about mocking religion, it's about being compassionate to people who feel the need to think wishfully.

* The usual 8-year-old type topics: Dinosaurs, Greek, Roman, Egyptian and Sumerian mythology and a quick reading of very simplified bible stories.
** It's Occam's Razor really but I'm extremely vain.
Non fui. Fui. Non sum. Non curo.

Imrael
Clardic Fug
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:59 am

Re: Mocking religion

Post by Imrael » Tue Dec 28, 2021 10:46 am

OTOH, I don't know any religious theoretical cosmologists that strongly believe in their religion's cosmogony. And that "strongly believe in <specific tenets>" distinction is necessary, because there are plenty of people that observe a religion without believing all of the dogma and tenets of that religion. Most people are fully capable of compartmentalizing religious beliefs, political beliefs and scientific thoughts, without even thinking about the tensions between them. And much personal religious thinking is more about "contemplate the mysteries" than "this is what happened".
I thought this was called the "2 magesterium" approach, but casual googling suggests otherwise. Basically says religion and science are about different topics/domains and there isnt really a clash. Attempts to insert religion into science ( as opposed to scientists) get you Intelligent Design, attempts to insert science into religion get you - dunno - Descartes wager?

Post Reply