Comments | soleklypse: Random Musings I posted to a discussion on Naturalist Philosophy

soleklypse

Random Musings I posted to a discussion on Naturalist Philosophy

Sep 15, 2008 00:50

I'm currently reading the (Christian) Bible (following the One Year Bible curriculum--it's the only way I would ever finish it) and I'm also reading a bit of Jung here and there (currently working through his Answer to Job) and trying to put myself in the mind of someone who really believes this stuff. I gave up on Christianity when I was about 10 ( Read more... )

philosophy, religion

Comments 4

qaexl September 16 2008, 20:47:14 UTC

What do you think about this line of reasoning: Animals developed "learned helplessness" to things they cannot control; for humans, as an alternative to learned helplessness, we create myths to explain the unknown. What the Cargo Cult folks do is in essence, no different from that beer commercial (where the "magic fridge" randomly appears in the living room) or scientists making up theories on how the universe works. Though scientists may go about testing those theories in a highly rigorous way, the motivation behind creating those theories in the first place remains the same.

-Q

Science is not a Religion... soleklypse September 16 2008, 22:48:27 UTC

...nor is religion a kind of primitive science. A lot of people seem to think that the purpose of religion is to "explain" things, saying that Zeus explained the phenomenon of thunder, but that not only completely misses the point, it is also not true. The vast majority of religious doctrine doesn't really explain anything at all. It may tell you what to do, but it won't often say why. And when it does explain, what it typically explains is ethics--a domain that science has yet to tackle. (N.B.: I'm not saying traditional religion does a terribly good job when it comes to ethics. Most of the Bible, for instance, is not very ethically sophisticated at all by modern standards. In fact, one might say the most compelling thing about the book of Job is that it so effectively demonstrates religion's failure in this regard ( ... )

Re: Science is not a Religion... qaexl September 17 2008, 03:31:24 UTC

whoa, seems I touched a nerve here.

I'm not suggesting that science is a form of religion -- though I have seen a few people oddly fanatical about their science -- or that religion was a form of primitive religion. I'm saying that the motivations for creating *myths* are the same as creating hypotheses.

In fact, let me make this clear. I consider religious study useful from a Campbell/Jung et. al framework. I find similar themes when I look at modern-day conspiracy and UFO theories in that light. I also find similar themes when looking at some of the blind alleys the scientific community has wandered down in history.

When I talk about "explanation", they do not have to include rationalized explanations, either. A simple, visceral certainty by which priests have called "faith" often suffies. And if you study psychology primarily for the purpose of manipulating people, a belief is a belief is a belief, regardless of whether it was informed by myth, religion, or science.

-Q

Re: Science is not a Religion... soleklypse September 17 2008, 03:59:38 UTC

Sorry if I seemed a bit, uh, vehement. I realize I was putting words in your mouth (sorry about that), but I see a lot of people grossly misunderstanding both science and religion in a way that ends up making a mockery of both. Not that you were doing that, but some of what you said reminded me of what I've heard far too many times ( ... )