This is a completely different stance than what has been claimed so far. Ciretose has been saying that I'm completely wrong and there's nothing to be gained.Because there's nothing to cite. At least for me. I agree with you in principle, I am STILL waiting for even a simple example of how exactly we apply this to science education in a way we haven't already.
I'm also amused that everyone opposing me isn't citing sources that back them up. Not because this is an "appeal to authority", but the people who claim to be defending science, aren't using it to defend themselves.As to how to educate people on how to think critically I would think religion is the absolute worst place to look, since it basically teaches you not to think critically, but to have faith.
I haven't claimed I want to teach "faith" though, have I?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that no amount of "cool" will ever be able to compete with the package that mainstream religion provides:
1. "Read this book, or have someone tell you what it says, and you now know everything from the origins of the universe, to the right way to live, to the secret of eternal life." How the hell can you top that? Science is hard -- you have to actually test stuff, and evaluate evidence, and use logic, and compare variables. And even then you miss wide swaths of knowledge, and run up against things we don't know yet. Hell with that. Instant omniscience is a hell of a lot easier. You can't compete with that using anything rooted in reality.
2. "Believe this thing, and you prove you're part of the tribe and can be trusted. Question things, and you're obviously unreliable and should be shunned." There's a reason that atheists are by far the least trusted group in America -- they don't toe the line. That's bad for unanimity of agreement. It causes all kinds of complications and questioning. There's also a reason so many scientists are atheists: scientists have to question things, so why not question the validity of the membership passwords? People who value "the fabric of our nation" would much rather you nod, salute, and obey -- not question things and cause problems.
I don't care how awe-inspiring the universe is, or how cool it is to blow stuff up. I don't think it matters in the least bit how glibly or metaphorically scientists communicate. I also find that people don't particularly value truth. So I don't think any of that can compete with instant omniscience and free membership in society and attendant popularity. If science and religion get pitted against one another -- by either side, or just by a quirk of view -- then for most people in the U.S., science automatically loses.
This is a completely different stance than what has been claimed so far. Ciretose has been saying that I'm completely wrong and there's nothing to be gained.Because there's nothing to cite. At least for me. I agree with you in principle, I am STILL waiting for even a simple example of how exactly we apply this to science education in a way we haven't already.
I'm also amused that everyone opposing me isn't citing sources that back them up. Not because this is an "appeal to authority", but the people who claim to be defending science, aren't using it to defend themselves.
To me it's a question of we already know all the "techniques" religion uses and to some degree we DO indeed use some of those in general teaching environments (the ones that aren't antithetical to science and/or less ethical - like indoctrination that I've mentioned before).
The difference is, again, in the subject matters.If you don't think "what religion does 'right'" hasn't already been studied, then I'd say you're wrong. It's basically what sections of sociology, history, pedagogy, psychology etc. do.
But here's an idea, just like religion (and as has been discussed before in this thread) the "burden of proof" lies on the one making a positive declaration. So, that would be you, since you say there's something we can learn from religion (which we, apparently, haven't already learned).
So what would this be (as has been queried for several times now)?
EDIT: Damn, partially ninja'ed by the drunken geologist satyr!
I haven't claimed I want to teach "faith" though, have I?When you use teaching tools that encourage people to not question what they are being told, what do you think you are teaching.
Faith in a version of science is not the same as faith in science.
Okay, so you're sticking by your strawman.
|
Okay, so you're sticking by your strawman.
I haven't claimed I want to teach "faith" though, have I?When you use teaching tools that encourage people to not question what they are being told, what do you think you are teaching.
Faith in a version of science is not the same as faith in science.
I'm waiting for you to explain what teaching methods religion uses that will teach critical thinking skills.
So time may pass I supposed. Onus is on you to defend your position, not me.
But here's an idea, just like religion (and as has been discussed before in this thread) the "burden of proof" lies on the one making a positive declaration. So, that would be you, since you say there's something we can learn from religion (which we, apparently, haven't already learned).
So what would this be (as has been queried for several times now)?
Since page 20, I have cited 23 sources of information.
Everyone else combined (debating me) has cited 5. (I'm not counting things like a 5-hour clip of He-man singing a 4-non blondes song, even though it's awesome).I've been asked what the solution is that I'm looking for, unfortunately I don't have it, other than to say I still think studying religion is valid and useful. Just because I don't have the final answer, doesn't mean the field of study is invalid.
I don't see the value in throwing our hands up and admitting defeat, which is what I hear from Kirth. Science is doing much better in other countries, and they're still comprised largely of the human species in their voting populations.
And not one of them addressed how religion is going to teach critical thinking skills.
Which is what science is.
Are you asking me to repeat myself from the past few pages, or are you claiming that none of them are correct in the evidence they present?
But here's an idea, just like religion (and as has been discussed before in this thread) the "burden of proof" lies on the one making a positive declaration. So, that would be you, since you say there's something we can learn from religion (which we, apparently, haven't already learned).
So what would this be (as has been queried for several times now)?Since page 20, I have cited 23 sources of information.
Everyone else combined (debating me) has cited 5. (I'm not counting things like a 5-hour clip of He-man singing a 4-non blondes song, even though it's awesome).
But you haven't cited anything that's particular to religion that we don't know about already!
So you say "we should study religion," but we already have! That's one of the results of the articles you've linked to!There is no "magic" answer in religious teachings that can be applied to science education and all of a sudden it'll be just as "popular" as religion.
Like I've said several times now (as as Kirth pointed out above), the biggest difference is in the subject matter.
Science doesn't offer the same "simple solutions" to the "big questions" as religion does, which is what most people are after in religion.
I've been asked what the solution is that I'm looking for, unfortunately I don't have it, other than to say I still think studying religion is valid and useful. Just because I don't have the final answer, doesn't mean the field of study is invalid.
So you don't know what you're looking for yourself, but you want us to agree with you or give evidence as to why your assumption is wrong (even though you don't have a factual assumption)... Erm, that's impossible.
If you want "science" to study religion for some "mystical" thing they have/use that might make science education better or more easily applied, then you have to have some kind of idea of what you're looking for. Otherwise you'd just be grasping for straws in the darkness.I don't see the value in throwing our hands up and admitting defeat, which is what I hear from Kirth. Science is doing much better in other countries, and they're still comprised largely of the human species in their voting populations.
Now you're touching on something that might be more valid. Study what other countries do instead!
|
|
Now you're touching on something that might be more valid. Study what other countries do instead!Irontruth wrote:
I don't see the value in throwing our hands up and admitting defeat, which is what I hear from Kirth. Science is doing much better in other countries, and they're still comprised largely of the human species in their voting populations.
Exactly. You didn't say we need to find ways to improve science education (which is critical thinking) you said we need to look to religion to learn ways to teach science.
Which isn't teaching science.
If I pull a fish out of my pocket and tell my child that is how you fish, I have taught him something. It is wrong, but it is something.
I don't care if we can use the lessons of religion to brainwash people into thinking things we want them to think. I care if we can make people actually think critically about things.
Again, people believe in "science" as much if not more than religion. That isn't the problem. The problem is they think what they are told is "science" without actually figuring out if it is true or not.
If you have any examples of a religious teaching technique that gets people to think critically, great.
What you've posted, doesn't.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But here's an idea, just like religion (and as has been discussed before in this thread) the "burden of proof" lies on the one making a positive declaration. So, that would be you, since you say there's something we can learn from religion (which we, apparently, haven't already learned).
So what would this be (as has been queried for several times now)?
Since page 20, I have cited 23 sources of information.
Everyone else combined (debating me) has cited 5. (I'm not counting things like a 5-hour clip of He-man singing a 4-non blondes song, even though it's awesome).I've been asked what the solution is that I'm looking for, unfortunately I don't have it, other than to say I still think studying religion is valid and useful. Just because I don't have the final answer, doesn't mean the field of study is invalid.
I don't see the value in throwing our hands up and admitting defeat, which is what I hear from Kirth. Science is doing much better in other countries, and they're still comprised largely of the human species in their voting populations.
Personally, I agree with IT; let me quickly say that mine is an unformed opinion that I am not prepared to back up with evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
I think that the study of religion is useful on many levels and across many disciplines.
Unfortunately, (and let me watch out for my own Aunt Sally) I have a feeling some European nations are doing much better at science education and acceptance than the US for the same reason, say, Germany has a better level of general science education than Iran, or the UK than Iraq: religion is getting in the way.
Without googling a hundred citations, or appealing to Tyson or Hawking or Dawkins, et al, let me speak generally--and maybe there's some unfair stereotyping coming up (and I promise not to mention that stereotypes aren't exactly autotrophic; they do get their grist from an apparent abundance of observation).
The religious of America, whether a true majority or not, are a ruling majority. I say this because, otherwise, we'd be working on growing new limbs and repairing spinal deviations with the fruits of stem cell research completed years ago, not arguing whether or not we're making God angry by using fetal tissue we're just going to incinerate anyway. Not to mention, we've figured out all sorts of ways to garner the cells needed without using fetal tissue, but the uneducated religious vocal majority hear only one thing: stem cell research = baby killing = God angry.
As long as religious parents are rearing children to believe that evolution by natural selection is blasphemy; that the earth is less than 6,000 years old; that the stars are two-dimensional projections of the lights of Heaven; that we cannot have ever gone to the moon because God put it there to light the nights (and it's not a real place); that dragons were dinosaurs with small nostrils that would catch fire when they breathed too fast (no kidding); that diseases are a punishment for being ungodly; that restless leg syndrome is actually demonic night visits; ---I could go on and on---, then I don't really see how science can compete for their attention (those uneducated and misinformed children, I mean): they're coming to science believing that it's wrong from the get-go.
Sure, the religious are quick to accept the electricity coming from their walls, the signals coming and going round their cell phones, the stupendously complex mechanical workings of their automobiles, the air conditioning in their houses and, usually, the odd heart transplant or MDT drug regimen to cure their leprosy (rather than shaking the blood of two birds across their bodies six times), but we can't risk telling them too much about how these 'miracles of science' actually happen without risking blasphemy or losing our funding (or prompting talks on Capitol Hill to abolish the NSF in favor of repurposing that agency's funding to the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives; thank President Obama for nipping that one before it caught fire) to research and develop more awesome miracles.
Sure, I'm being a bit mendacious and bit unfair, but only a little bit.
I don't know what science can learn from religion with regard to how to teach science or 'make it more popular' with the masses. The truth is, the masses (in America) don't care so long as the lights come on when the switch is flipped, the call goes through when dialed, and the car doesn't blow up when you turn the ignition. As long as I hear people blame their 'sins' for why the A/C in their Honda is suddenly on the fritz instead of the busted compressor, and as long as MI victims are saved by God's Grace rather than the paramedic using a defibrillator, then I don't hold out much hope for any resurgence of enthusiasm in science education.
On second thought, I take it back. I'm not sure what religion can teach us at all, especially not in 2012.
But I am pretty sure that if you got rid of superstition completely, then science would be all that was left.
If my neighbor simply couldn't say bad karma killed her Kia's A/C, because she didn't believe in karma, she'd have no recourse but to investigate for a mechanical failure.
Or gremlins.
Now you're touching on something that might be more valid. Study what other countries do instead!Irontruth wrote:
I don't see the value in throwing our hands up and admitting defeat, which is what I hear from Kirth. Science is doing much better in other countries, and they're still comprised largely of the human species in their voting populations.Exactly. You didn't say we need to find ways to improve science education (which is critical thinking) you said we need to look to religion to learn ways to teach science.
Which isn't teaching science.
If I pull a fish out of my pocket and tell my child that is how you fish, I have taught him something. It is wrong, but it is something.
I don't care if we can use the lessons of religion to brainwash people into thinking things we want them to think. I care if we can make people actually think critically about things.
Again, people believe in "science" as much if not more than religion. That isn't the problem. The problem is they think what they are told is "science" without actually figuring out if it is true or not.
If you have any examples of a religious teaching technique that gets people to think critically, great.
What you've posted, doesn't.
You've had the same post for 5 pages now. It's pretty clear you've got this post down, but if you need to keep practicing it, feel free.
But you haven't cited anything that's particular to religion that we don't know about already!
So you say "we should study religion," but we already have! That's one of the results of the articles you've linked to!
There is no "magic" answer in religious teachings that can be applied to science education and all of a sudden it'll be just as "popular" as religion.
Like I've said several times now (as as Kirth pointed out above), the biggest difference is in the subject matter.
Science doesn't offer the same "simple solutions" to the "big questions" as religion does, which is what most people are after in religion.
I'm done with generalities. If you want to get specific, you're going to need to quote my posts with the source that you disagree with.
I'm done with generalities. If you want to get specific, you're going to need to quote my posts with the source that you disagree with.
But you haven't cited anything that's particular to religion that we don't know about already!
So you say "we should study religion," but we already have! That's one of the results of the articles you've linked to!
There is no "magic" answer in religious teachings that can be applied to science education and all of a sudden it'll be just as "popular" as religion.
Like I've said several times now (as as Kirth pointed out above), the biggest difference is in the subject matter.
Science doesn't offer the same "simple solutions" to the "big questions" as religion does, which is what most people are after in religion.
Are you really not getting it?
Can you repost which of your sources went into explicit detail on HOW to integrate metaphors and symbolism into science education?I must have missed that post.
Are you really not getting it?
Can you repost which of your sources went into explicit detail on HOW to integrate metaphors and symbolism into science education?
I must have missed that post.
Cool, let me know if you find it. There's more than one.
As far as I can tell, I'm alone on my side... against 5-6 of you on the other side. If you can't be bothered to pay attention or look through the thread, then I don't see why I should be bothered to hold your hand and do your work for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you really not getting it?
Can you repost which of your sources went into explicit detail on HOW to integrate metaphors and symbolism into science education?
I must have missed that post.Cool, let me know if you find it. There's more than one.
As far as I can tell, I'm alone on my side... against 5-6 of you on the other side. If you can't be bothered to pay attention or look through the thread, then I don't see why I should be bothered to hold your hand and do your work for you.
Dude, I looked at your links. As far as I can tell NONE of them explained how you're supposed to do what I asked. Zero. Please point me to ONE that does. I'll read it again and see what I missed.
You're not "doing my homework" it's called participating in a debate online. SHOW your work. You're not. You're just saying "well if YOU don't already know why should I tell you?"
EDIT: Yep flipped through your links AGAIN.
PLEASE READ THIS PART IRONTRUTH: ok got your attention?
I AGREE WITH YOU that scientists need to communicate better.
Got that? We're in agreement.
I AGREE WITH YOU that metaphor is a powerful method of communicating.
It's universal to language, as well as intrinsic to most religions.
I AGREE WITH YOU that using metaphors might help communicate scientific ideas better and foster a greater understanding of science in the general public.
So. Now. HOW? Specifically. Do we do that?
Like I've said earlier, it's not something that I can actually answer. I think there are other people, much smarter than me who can though.
Alan Alda, speaking at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT. He starts around the 3:00 mark.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I've said earlier, it's not something that I can actually answer. I think there are other people, much smarter than me who can though.
Alan Alda, speaking at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT. He starts around the 3:00 mark.
OK then. If you don't know, if you can't answer, and, interesting though they are, your links only provide vague ideas not actionable plans... You have to admit it's YOU who has not brought anything to the table.
I've familiarized myself with what you're talking about. You seem to be advocating communicating about science, with peers, in an anecdotal way. Not lecturing, but informing, sort of proselytizing. That's fine. That may be a great way to go about making the adult population of the US, who are already dubious of science due to religious reasons, more aware of scientific progress.
It doesn't address what I THOUGHT we were all talking about, which is "getting them while they're young" or educating of children in primary and secondary school. This didactic method lacks specificity, it lacks the ability to communicate the often complex ideas inherent in science, and it's only good to communicate a sort of vague understanding of things like black holes or evolution.
I also think that we're already doing this. It's certainly how my science teachers always have been, even in Catholic school!
I also think it's peculiar that you think this is inherently religious and ONLY religious. You're talking about telling stories. Religion doesn't have any monopoly on storytelling.
I never said it's only religious. I've said religion holds value in regards to it's ability to communicate. That is not an exclusionary statement. In fact, here's a quote from me, where I first talked about potential value in religion:
Religion is usually much easier to understand than science for lay people
I don't say that religion is the only thing they can understand. I didn't claim there isn't value in other places for science to study.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We all agree scientists need to communicate better.
I think we even all agree there is much to be learned from religion about psychology.
What we don't agree about is that using the same techniques religion uses is a good way to teach science.
Because we don't think people "learn" from religious teaching. We call that "indoctrination" and it isn't the same as learning.
If you said we could learn a lot from religion about how to get the masses to blindly follow whatever we wanted them to follow, I agree 100%.
But you are saying we can learn about teaching science from religion, and if your version of "teaching science" isn't about teaching people to think critically and intelligently questioning everything, including standing scientific ideas and principles, your way of teaching science fails.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said it's only religious. I've said religion holds value in regards to it's ability to communicate. That is not an exclusionary statement. In fact, here's a quote from me, where I first talked about potential value in religion:
Religion is usually much easier to understand than science for lay peopleI don't say that religion is the only thing they can understand. I didn't claim there isn't value in other places for science to study.
You also said this in the same paragraph:
"Children often don't believe in the religion right away, but cultural reinforcement makes it very easy for children to follow as they "fake it until they make it". A fictional narrative that uses similes and metaphors is easier for the human brain to grasp and understand than legal documents or scientific journals."
Which is what we are taking issue with. Teaching fictional narratives, while effective for indoctrination, is not teaching science.
Convincing someone to agree with you isn't the same as teaching them how to come to their own conclusions.
The reason we have so many people unable to think for themselves is the problems. Having them unable to think for themselves following a different narrative isn't the solution, as understanding of the world changes over time.
The person "taught" to believe the science of the 1950's, 1960's, 1970's,1980's, etc...would believe very different things to be true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think another important aspect isn't so much in the actual teaching of science. Frankly, I don't think (proper*) science education in the US is that much different from science education in other parts of the world.
Where I think one of the biggest obstacles lies, as has also been pointed out before in the thread, is the competition with religion and the influence religion has on the kids (and in some areas the curriculum itself). In e.g. Western Europe, religion doesn't play as big a role outside the class room, so there's less pressure on the kids to doubt science education.
So, in short, I think it's a bigger issue how to deal with the anti-science indoctrination that's occurring outside the school.
* By "proper" I mean science taught by teachers who aren't e.g. creationists and try to either "teach the controversy" or in some other way put doubt into the minds of the students by continually saying something akin to: "now kids, remember, evolution is only a theory..."
We all agree scientists need to communicate better.
I think we even all agree there is much to be learned from religion about psychology.
What we don't agree about is that using the same techniques religion uses is a good way to teach science.
Because we don't think people "learn" from religious teaching. We call that "indoctrination" and it isn't the same as learning.
If you said we could learn a lot from religion about how to get the masses to blindly follow whatever we wanted them to follow, I agree 100%.
But you are saying we can learn about teaching science from religion, and if your version of "teaching science" isn't about teaching people to think critically and intelligently questioning everything, including standing scientific ideas and principles, your way of teaching science fails.
Good practice on this post. Who is it for?
Because I have not advocated indoctrination, so you clearly aren't speaking to me.
edit: this is the only type of response you will get from me until you move on from this point. We agree, indoctrination is bad.
|
|
"Children often don't believe in the religion right away, but cultural reinforcement makes it very easy for children to follow as they "fake it until they make it". A fictional narrative that uses similes and metaphors is easier for the human brain to grasp and understand than legal documents or scientific journals." - Irontruth, upthread.
Yup, I see it. And you're convinced I'm pro-indoctrination. Anything else to talk about?
edit- I apologize for the snarkiness, but there is really nothing for you and I discuss at this point. I say something and all you reply back with is "you're advocating indoctrination". If I can accurately predict what your response is going to contain, there's no need for us to have a discussion. If you have something else you want to say, please feel free, up so far you have not demonstrated a willingness to listen to what I'm saying, so I don't really feel any strong need to continue debating you.
|
|
I actually didn't say anything. I just quoted what you said.
If you have an issue with what you said, I'm not the person to take it up with.
What we are all saying is that teaching someone to blindly follow a version of "science" isn't science teaching.
In the 1970's global cooling became a popular idea. Not because it was true, but because it sounded like science to people who didn't critically think about things and do personal research.
The people who were given that "fictional narrative that uses similes and metaphors" believed that we had another ice age coming. Those same people point to that now when we speak of global warming and say "People were saying we were gonna have global cooling in the 70's...science is dumb".
Why?
Because rather than teaching people to think for themselves, some people think science education is about telling people "facts" and that makes people trust science.
What makes me trust science is that it works. How do I know it works? Because everyone is checking up on it and will call it out if it doesn't.
If you want to have a science education program, that is what you can teach with metaphors and similes. That science fact checks. That when science is wrong, it self corrects.
Religion doesn't do that. Religious teaching methods specifically teach you to trust the word of the authority figures, and don't worry your pretty little head about thinking about why some things that are religious laws we follow and others we don't...
If you would like to explain a single thing we can learn from religion that will teach people to think independently, you may be able to make a point.
A point you are trying to make, not us. This is your hypothesis to defend.
Since you didn't actually bring up anything else, I'll assume you don't actually want to talk to me. The way I can tell is that you did exactly what I predicted.
It's certainly not enough to declare it a scientific law, but the first data result has corroborated the hypothesis. So far, so good.
To the original question...
No. Atheism is not a religion.
However, there are people who take it to extremes that certainly appear similar to religious fundamentalism.
Which people would these be? Because "stop using our government as a means of proslethizing for your religion" is hardly an extreme position.
People who seem to have a 'need' to go out of thier way to offend anyone who might be religious.
Mostly I think that's a backlash against the social armor of invulnerability that religion has traditionally enjoyed -- the very strong, almost absolute taboo against criticizing or making fun of religion or religious ideas in any way, that went unquestioned by most people in the U.S. until fairly recently.
However, I have seen people who tend to be offended by the fact that a person nearby goes to church. People who seem to have a 'need' to go out of their way to offend anyone who might be religious.
I think thats a social problem more than a religion problem, from two things
First its hard to explain the subtle and overt flak you get from the religious growing up as an atheist (as a prominent example, everyone getting standing up at the start of every school day and telling you you're wrong and getting detention if you don't go along) So when someone brings up that they're religious, even innocently, the atheist is waiting for the other shoe to drop and gets defensive. Best defense is a good offense.
Secondly they might not know that the other person is religious and make an offhand comment about bleeping idiots. On a habitat for humanity crew I heard a few comments along those lines about atheists.
If you had grown adults believing in other mythical beings running around you'd probably have some comments about them too.
Is this the communication strategy you were advocating?
Nope, I'm just not interested in discussing this with you any more. You've got one note, and it's boring. It hasn't felt like you're actually trying to communicate with me, but with rather with some imagined version of me. So feel free to continue if you like, since it doesn't actually matter what I'm saying.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Religion teaches you NOT to think. Science demands that you do.
Most religions involve quite a lot of thinking, but only by certain individual adherents.
Few religions actively encourage 'critical thinking', or teach 'how to think' (especially critically), and I might venture the argument that most teach very precisely 'what to think'.
As a former Roman Catholic and Knight of Columbus, I would personally argue Catholicism is a 'what to think' religion.
|
|
Religion teaches you NOT to think. Science demands that you do.Most religions involve quite a lot of thinking, but only by certain individual adherents.
Few religions actively encourage 'critical thinking', or teach 'how to think' (especially critically), and I might venture the argument that most teach very precisely 'what to think'.
As a former Roman Catholic and Knight of Columbus, I would personally argue Catholicism is a 'what to think' religion.
Exactly.
There is a lot of very intelligent discussion to be had about the nuances of religion, but at the end of the day it is all based on unquestionable assumptions.
Science is about not having any unquestionable assumptions.
|
|
Religion teaches you NOT to think. Science demands that you do.That, I think, depends on the religion in question. And probably how much of a heirarchy it has.
Perhaps a more fair wording is that religion teaches you to believe and accept a higher power/purpose/organization/etc...while science teaches you to question beliefs to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
Perhaps a more fair wording is that religion teaches you to believe and accept a higher power/purpose/organization/etc...while science teaches you to question beliefs to see if they stand up to scrutiny.Religion teaches you NOT to think. Science demands that you do.That, I think, depends on the religion in question. And probably how much of a heirarchy it has.
Because religion is just one tool for cultural cohesion. Language is another strong one. But as much as it unites one community, which can totally be seen as a positive, it projects a barrier between theirs and other communities that are dissimilar, sometimes dehumanizing them
Not disagreeing with your statement, just adding to it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The "thinking part" of religion is theology. Most religions are set up so that while theology is accessible to nearly anyone, there are some people who make special study of it. There is a similar phenomenon with science and technology, in which the majority of people don't understand the theoretical underpinnings of, for instance, internal combustion or wave propagation, but they drive cars and use cell phones. The difference is that the results of scientific study are replicable because it is objective, but the results of theological study may not be replicable because religious experience is subjective and a matter of interpretation.
The difference is that the results of scientific study are replicable because it is objective, but the results of theological study may not be replicable because religious experience is subjective and a matter of interpretation.
Are you saying the results of theological study are irrelevant, or at least trivial, beyond the mind of the particular person doing them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "thinking part" of religion is theology. Most religions are set up so that while theology is accessible to nearly anyone, there are some people who make special study of it.
But here's the HUGE difference.
Theoligian thinks something is true. ------Complicated philosophical argument----> That thing is true
Theologian thinks something is false----->Complicated philosophical argument----> that thing is false.
And there's no way to ever resolve it.
Scientist 1 thinks something is true. Scientist 2 thinks its false-----> experiment------> We get an actual objective answer. Yay. Knowledge.