Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: The Religion of Science: Environmentalism 63

Journal by Marxist Hacker 42
I've raved a few times about the ID/Evolution debate- always reducing it to what I see is the main problem, the encroachment of science as religion, of the idea of "facts" being touted as the new dogma of truth, being put in opposition to other stubborn people who think they've found the "Truth". But this problem isn't limited to ID/Evolution: Michael Chrichton, the famous anti-science fiction author and anthropologist, suggests that the real problem is the concept of a secular society. Religion, he claims, is one of those structures that simply cannot be eliminated from the human experience; eliminated it from one level and it will appear again on another level in another way. Without mythos, we cannot explain the world; that doesn't mean science is wrong, it just means that science is not entirely right, AND NEITHER IS ANYTHING ELSE WE BELIEVE IN.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Religion of Science: Environmentalism More

The Religion of Science: Environmentalism

Comments Filter:
  • So... By their very nature, Humans are wrong?

    That certainly would explain a lot of things. :D
    • Yep- that's exactly my point. By their very nature, human beings can never be absolutely certain about anything. Moral certainty is something else entirely. See the Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church, latest edition, for the difference.
  • I feel I must quote Vonnegut's Bokononism from Cat's Cradle: "Busy, busy, busy!"

    That would be a better description of the world/universe than most more specific ones.

  • Without mythos, we cannot explain the world; that doesn't mean science is wrong, it just means that science is not entirely right, AND NEITHER IS ANYTHING ELSE WE BELIEVE IN.

    Actually, this is absolutely right--and is in fact the whole point of science. This is what I consider the best definition of science vs. religious dogma: science is not entirely right, and does not claim to be entirely right. In fact, many scientific "truths" are discredited each year, replaced with better models. But the result of
    • Let me clarify that I did not intend to imply that science is superior to theology, or that it replaces theology. Both are essential. Science is the best tool we have for discovering the nature of the world, but it does nothing to answer the harder questions, such as what is our purpose here, what should we do with our lives, and what is our relationship with the divine.

      But there is still another important distinction between science and theology. Science is universal, because it is based on the one thin
      • Let me clarify that I did not intend to imply that science is superior to theology, or that it replaces theology. Both are essential. Science is the best tool we have for discovering the nature of the world, but it does nothing to answer the harder questions, such as what is our purpose here, what should we do with our lives, and what is our relationship with the divine.

        A good distinction- and one that came through quite admirably in the original. One far too many people seem to ignore in the United Stat
        • A recent question on one of my more philosophical Roman Catholic Theologian Yahoogroups was "75% of the people in the United States claim to be Christian. Does anybody here actually believe that they are?"

          This reminds me, once my parents and I were watching an artist performing on TV. Suddenly, my mother asked me if the guy were Christian. I said I didn't know. (She asked me likely because I listen to Christian music, and would have a reasonable chance of knowing in her mind.) Then she pointed out that
          • One of my favorite Zen statements came from the Japanese Emperor Mej. Soon after Japan was opened to the west for the first time in 400 years, a western reporter noticed something strange: The number of Catholics, Buddhists, and Shintos in the country reported by the various churches and temples was about one and a half times the actual population of Japan. He used this factoid in an interview with the emperor, trying to discern the mind of the average Japanese by their self-proclaimed God. The Emperor
            • To some extent you're right- but to a deeper theology, by grace alone do we have faith, and the proof of faith is works (Joint Declaration on Justification by the World Lutheran Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, 1999).

              Right, I'm aware that our salvation is expressed by our works. (You tell a tree by its fruit.)

              But the issue here, is that his works were not showing one way or the other. He was simply singing. Lyrics (and words) mean little compared to action.

              When it gets right down to it, there was
              • But the issue here, is that his works were not showing one way or the other. He was simply singing. Lyrics (and words) mean little compared to action.

                Quite true. Plus- we fail so badly at our works- I think Douglas Adams put it best: A very unhappy race, trying to make each other happy by moving little green pieces of paper around, which is very illogical, since on the whole, it was not the little green pieces of paper that were unhappy. Americans are really bad at trying to stay so uninvolved in their
      • Welcome to my friends list.

        BTW, you're beating a dead horse with MH. I've been around and around with him on this. Agree to disagree.
        • As much as I enjoy discussing things with him, sometimes, his addherence to circular christian reasoning can drive one up the wall (or further from the very god christians profess).

          The fact that they (christians and catholics in general) use the term 'God' as implied by the Bible implies that there is no tolerance for gods (plural), or perhaps a higher level of existence, but instead one almighty being, evidenced only by a self contradicting text altered by kings, priests and anyone who had the fortune to b
          • That and the issue that christmas is not the birth of christ, but merely the pagan winter solstice celebration adopted to absorb the followers of many other religions into the christian dogma. (Look up norse mythology, which was around quite a bit before Christ, given that the northmen of the era were making pattern welded steel swords at the same time (roughly 800BC) the japanese started to, on opposite sides of the globe... was it Wodan (Odin) or Amaterasu that gave them this ability... or perhaps there w
            • While our secular views are almost mirrors, our views on religion are different, always a nice discussion, even if it often seems hostile :)

              ~D
              • While our secular views are almost mirrors, our views on religion are different, always a nice discussion, even if it often seems hostile :)

                The only real difference I see is that to me, anything old enough gains validity with age. I think that's part of my problem with quantum mechanics- it really isn't old enough yet to have been tested properly. The Vedas have though- as have several other religious texts. The test of time- and the doctrinal developing it brings- is important. It's the reason why re
                • Ever wonder about the description of nuclear attacks in the Mahabharata and the RG Veda? (rig veda)

                  Would those be true gods, or is there the more than fair chance that our species or the ancestors to our species were perhaps even more advanced than we are, but perhaps on a different tech tree than the one we have followed... allowing only for similarity in the weapon side of things... (flyer dropping nukes?)

                  To less advanced individuals the science of this would look like magic or godly miracles... while we
                  • That is of course the very purpose of religion- to keep a society together and keep people from killing each other. Beliefs, widespread beliefs, are very capable of mob control.

                    I once chased off a Jehovah's Witness by claiming that life was purposeless- my fear of an indeterministic universe is doubly so for any fundamentalist of any stripe.
                    • Indeed, that is a fear we all share, but I prefer to declare myself Buddhist or "still in search" rather than accept what's been shoved down my throat (Romanian Orthodox in childhood, Catholic and Baptist in my teenage years, I must say the Orthodox were awesome, they didnt FORCE me to believe, but were the only thing available to my grandparents).

                      ~D
                    • That's true of most of the older religions- I have this theory I've been working on for several years- or maybe it's more of an analogy. Religious sects, like human beings, go through definite stages of growth and renewal; and by the time a sect is more than 1500 years old, evangelization changes from force and preaching to example. This is true of just about any religion- but I'd point out that Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox sects are the only Christian sects to reach that point so far- Protestantism
          • (Anyone ever read the Second Ammendment in full? Its amazing what reading the precursory sentence to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" can be... one finds out, you're not to carry your AK47 to school, but instead that your state has the right to organize ITS OWN MILITIA and congress can make no law to disband or disarm them!!)

            Have you ever read the New Mexico consitution?

            Article XVIII, Section 1.

            The militia of this state shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages o

            • which means they don't NEED the NRA to protect their rights to take the AK47 to kindergarten or the RPG or TOW-2 to highschool... or perhaps the "nukular warhead" to sunday school. But honestly, I simply mean to say that the NRA and most republicans take almost every article of the constitution and all the ammendments, and take them COMPLETELY out of context or as much as they can... this could be because the constitution and declaration of independence are NOT taught in school anymore, just snippets and c
              • which means they don't NEED the NRA to protect their rights to take the AK47 to kindergarten or the RPG or TOW-2 to highschool...

                Of course they do, because gun control freaks will look at the second amendment and just wash it, and say "militia only bastards". Note that this is the only amendment that liberals look at and don't expand as a right.

                To the point if you want to take them all literally, the first amendment provides solely that the US cannot create a state religion, but not that the state cannot p
                • Wonderful job at expanding on my patriotism comment, I was tired last night, thanks a bunch.

                  I agree with most of it, I know quite a few Canadians actually. The comment stands. I also happen to know plenty of others.

                  My hatred of unfettered trade with the Chinese is that they play by a different rulebook, I have no qualms buying from Taiwan or Hong Kong (when it wasn't annexed by the mainland government).

                  However, paying into a nation that sees us as nothing more than a cash cow to be bled dry and then pushe
    • Actually, this is absolutely right--and is in fact the whole point of science. This is what I consider the best definition of science vs. religious dogma: science is not entirely right, and does not claim to be entirely right. In fact, many scientific "truths" are discredited each year, replaced with better models. But the result of all this is the overall body of science moving asymptotically closer to Truth, whatever that is, but never actually reaching it.

      The best scientists admit to this- but those wh
      • For that, you get added to my friends list.

        I've found that the easiest way to get your friends list is to list you as a foe. Hehe :)

        I had wondered why spontaneously I had a ton of friends-of-a-friend, and not foe-of-a-friends.
        • True, in many ways- I do like reading opinions I disagree with. Two of the best I think are Pudge and Red Warrior- neither one likes me deconstructing the current administration, and have thus foe'd me, but I like seeing what they both have to say.
          • Often one learns the most from one's enemies.

            I've often been disappointed that people don't actually *listen* to people that they disagree with, or just plain don't like. I've never seen the point in ignoring potentially useful information just because I don't like where it's coming from.

            I've picked up two things from people that I cannot stand:

            1.) If you have a set of identical images, and you want to find which one is the different one, or you have two images, and you have to spot the differences, the be
            • I've never seen the point in ignoring potentially useful information just because I don't like where it's coming from.

              In the end, that's what bothers me most about the separation of Church and State, or the separation of science and theology- the people on both sides of the fence that treat the other side as if it always lies. While we simply can't take statements written down as literal truth anymore, as if we ever could- the flip side of that argument is that there is a core of truth in every mythos, i
              • This is kind of why I like Germany a little better than the US. They're not so hard headed about this seperation of church and state thing. No, they can't declare an official state religion, and they tolerate alternate religous beliefs (even when they strongly disagree with them, like the Scientologists).

                Rather, science and religion work side by side in one's life, working together. Religion rarely comes out of the church, and the meta-nature of things, as this is where it's best. Now, granted, there's
                • And as far as the state is concerned, who cares about the sex of these people, they'd be together anyways, and they deserve the same dignities we afford everyone else in that same situation.

                  Well, some would point out that historically, and even now, stable heterosexual relationships do seem to be very good at doing one thing the state is very interested in: creating a generation of taxpayers to replace the ones that die off. The problem is, unstable heterosexual relationships are quite astoundingly bad
                  • In reality, the wierd part is that the state has NO official interest or business in regulating sex outside of procreation- but many governments do it anyway.

                    It is the opinion of many people, who hold what is called a "social conservative" position, that one of the functions of government is to regulate people's social behaviors, so that all conform to a certain "standard of decency." The Republican party is the largest group in the U.S. whose party platform advocates this purpose of government; many Repub
                    • My point was on a "vested self interest" ideal. Procreation is obviously good for the state, as it creates more taxpaying citizens, a small number of whom are super-contributers; giving more than they receive. That's how the state keeps going.

                      But beyond that- where I'm a social conservative myself, I can't make a similar case for "standards of decency". In fact, there seems to be a lot more economic movement and money to be made in indecency.

                      We see this somewhat in the Republican Party itself- they're
                    • Well, a certain amount of procreation is obviously a requirement for the state to continue to exist beyond the aging and death of the current generation. I'm not sure about the super-contributor argument--clearly, the state exists due to the contributions of the majority of its citizens, not just a few--but it's certainly true that the economy is a complex beast that nobody fully understands.

                      Were I asked to assign labels, I might have pegged you with more of a libertarian philosophy than as a social conser
                    • Well, a certain amount of procreation is obviously a requirement for the state to continue to exist beyond the aging and death of the current generation. I'm not sure about the super-contributor argument--clearly, the state exists due to the contributions of the majority of its citizens, not just a few--but it's certainly true that the economy is a complex beast that nobody fully understands.

                      Supercontributers are VERY rare individuals- there seem to be a few more of them about these days, but then again,
                  • Well, some would point out that historically, and even now, stable heterosexual relationships do seem to be very good at doing one thing the state is very interested in: creating a generation of taxpayers to replace the ones that die off. The problem is, unstable heterosexual relationships are quite astoundingly bad at this- and we haven't had data long enough to "prove" that stable homosexual relationships can actually replace stable hetero relationships.

                    Disregarding all issues of homosexuality vs heterose
                    • Disregarding all issues of homosexuality vs heterosexuality. The issue here is that generally the two people would be living the same life, married or not. Many of them consider themselves married, despite being legally constrained from doing so.

                      So what? What does the state get in return would be the question. From a stable heterosexual couple, they get new kids, who theoretically will one day become contributing members of society. What would they get from a sterile heterosexual couple or a homosexual
                    • So what? What does the state get in return would be the question. From a stable heterosexual couple, they get new kids, who theoretically will one day become contributing members of society. What would they get from a sterile heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple or even worse yet, an abusive heterosexual couple? Why should the state do anything to preserve these non-ideal unions?

                      Because the state in the USA does not have any preventative actions here. They have a status of tolerate, but don't let the
                    • Because the state in the USA does not have any preventative actions here. They have a status of tolerate, but don't let them marry. This is idiocy, as it's inconsistent, because you're fighting an issue that it trivial and essentially moot. They're not doing anything to STOP these homosexual couples from coming together, so why should they be upset when they do?

                      They're not. They're upset at their tax dollars appearing to support an infertile couple.

                      But this is mostly trivial help, and support. The tax
                    • They're not. They're upset at their tax dollars appearing to support an infertile couple.

                      No, most are bothered simply that they're homosexual.

                      Actully, in the US that fell along with several other situations on untaxed income when Bush cut taxes on the rich. The poor have always had great tax credits for having more children.

                      Yeah, that's why I added "last I heard". In any case, the idea here is that someone raising a well-adjusted child is a good thing for the country. So, tax credits to whoever has the ch
                    • I don't see a point for giving a woman benefit and props simply upon the basis that she has/had kids.

                      Actually, article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that we MUST do this- create a separate economy to support mothers and children- and not to is a human rights violation every bit as bad as anything happening in China today. I find it very interesting how left wing attitudes have changed in the last 60 years since that was written (or the 58 years it's been since it was endorsed by
                    • Unless we're working with different copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights...

                      Article 26.

                      (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

                      (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengtheni

                    • Sorry- I was one off:

                      Article 25.
                      (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

                      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out

                    • Article 25.

                      (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

                      Special care and assistance. This can be supplied without a special economy to support them. In fact, "special care and assistance" could potentially mean a simple OB/GYN, prenatal, delivery and pediatric care. One can easily argue that these are special care and assistance, since they are not offered to anyone who is not in Motherhoo

                    • Again, it all depends on who interprets the declaration, as the rest of the declaration as I said, only perscribes rights to those who are born, that's Article 1. Then you can wonder which takes precidence over the other, but Article 30 says we can't play games like that, so if two rights of the declaration are found to be in conflict, no one can decide which is more important.

                      I would point out that nowhere in any of the articles do we find a right to kill off the next generation for our own economic well
                    • I would point out that nowhere in any of the articles do we find a right to kill off the next generation for our own economic well being.

                      Nowhere in the original Roe vs Wade decision was such a statement made. They allowed first trimester abortions in order to protect the right to privacy of the mother.

                      Well, I know in the program I am currently working on, we're struggling with the concept of nine genders. By that idea, sexual orientation would be considered "sexes". Hmm, that raises an interesting thought-
                    • Nowhere in the original Roe vs Wade decision was such a statement made. They allowed first trimester abortions in order to protect the right to privacy of the mother.

                      And yet, we find the majority of abortions have little or nothing to do with privacy- or even medical necessity (protecting the life or fertility of the mother) or mental health (rape and incest) and everything to do with economic well being. Depending on whose numbers you believe, less than 10% fall into the #1 privacy ideal of protecting a
                    • And yet, we find the majority of abortions have little or nothing to do with privacy- or even medical necessity (protecting the life or fertility of the mother) or mental health (rape and incest) and everything to do with economic well being. Depending on whose numbers you believe, less than 10% fall into the #1 privacy ideal of protecting a teenage mother from her parents or retribution from a violent man in her life. Over 90% are "we can't afford the baby" or "the birth control failed", neither of which h
                    • Laws have since changed, though.

                      Unfortuneately not for the better though- all the laws surrounding abortion are concentrating on the privacy and murder issues, almost none are answering the quesiton of "why are abortion rates so high?". I personally think if it wasn't for the political value in the whole debate (of distracting us from more important issues) there would be a lot of value in a law that requires:
                      1. Birth subsidy added to WIC to make birth and abortion equal cost solutions from the point of
                    • Unfortuneately not for the better though

                      We all know this is your opinion. Some care to disagree.

                      all the laws surrounding abortion are concentrating on the privacy and murder issues, almost none are answering the quesiton of "why are abortion rates so high?".

                      Is it necesarily bad that the abortion rates are so high?

                      I personally think if it wasn't for the political value in the whole debate (of distracting us from more important issues) there would be a lot of value in a law that requires:
                      1. Birth subsidy add
                    • Is it necesarily bad that the abortion rates are so high?

                      We're back to the rights of the next generation. High abortion rates are a major contributing factor to negative population growth in the first world. Negative population growth means that the population is aging- and while I would agree that due to the recent recesssion the baby boomers probably aren't retiring soon, it's easy to see that we've got an unsupportable demographic problem coming up in the near future due to negative population growth
                    • High abortion rates are a major contributing factor to negative population growth in the first world.

                      Except the US still has positive population growth. Actually, it's contraception that is the leading cause of negative population growth, that and the lower desire of people to have children. Europe has been struggling with this for a long time.

                      True enough- but this is a way to get the foot in the back door, so to speak. The very people who are against paying taxes to fund other people's health care are th
                    • Except the US still has positive population growth

                      Not among people born here- we haven't had POSITIVE population growth since 1979.

                      Actually, it's contraception that is the leading cause of negative population growth, that and the lower desire of people to have children. Europe has been struggling with this for a long time.

                      So has the United States, actually- it's just hidden by our immigration rate. ZPG would need another half a million children a year- easily coverable by the abortion rate.

                      Not real

                    • Population growth rate: 0.92% (2005 est.)
                      Birth rate: 14.14 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)
                      Death rate: 8.25 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)
                      Net migration rate: 3.31 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2005 est.)

                      http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html [cia.gov]

                      Right, so a 3.31 migrants/1000 population growth rate makes a bigger difference than the 14.14 births/1000 population in the 0.92% US growth rate.

                      Not to mention that the birth rate is higher than the death rate.

                      If you want to just wo

                    • You win- I'll try to redo the next two answers when reality comes back to call. Right now, I think I'm getting the cold my family had earlier in the week....and the fever is making it very hard to read....
    • Just as a small point here, religion does stay firm. The Christianity practiced today is much different than it was pre-Luther. Pre-Luther it was very much as you described, the church was the absolute authority, and they would pull the rug out from anyone who dared to offend them.

      Luther though brought a big change. He started saying crazy things like that beliefs had to be grounded in the Scriptures. That the only decent authority on Christian behavior could be the Scriptures, as the Popes and Cardinal
      • I think the point is that religion - at least most organized religion - is based on the concept of having an absolute faith in the god or leader of said religion, followed by faith in the holy writings accepted by the religious group, followed by faith in the interpretation of those writings by the authorities within the group. Most religious changes are based on the lowest tier there - the interpretation by those in authority - not the writings or the god/leader. In fact, when changes occur they are gene
        • I think the point is that religion - at least most organized religion - is based on the concept of having an absolute faith in the god or leader of said religion, followed by faith in the holy writings accepted by the religious group, followed by faith in the interpretation of those writings by the authorities within the group. Most religious changes are based on the lowest tier there - the interpretation by those in authority - not the writings or the god/leader. In fact, when changes occur they are genera
        • Well, to math's credit, most of it can be validated, and much of it can be treated as fact. Those things that cannot be validated are unlikely to encroach into one's every day life.

          And I completely agree that we would need to revamp our society to get science out of religion corner. But, this isn't just in the educational sector, this idea that science is right because a scientist said so is so pervasive across our culture that it would take an enormous amount of effort to fix this.

          Plus, there are quite a
          • Well, to math's credit, most of it can be validated, and much of it can be treated as fact. Those things that cannot be validated are unlikely to encroach into one's every day life.

            Actually though, have you ever noticed that it can be only validated if you accpet it's initial assumptions? One of my favorites is basic addition- and the unwritten assumption that you are dealing in discrete units. Take something less well defined, and it stops working. One Cloud plus 5 Clouds is still one Cloud- because t
            • Yes, within the constrains of the initial axioms. Just for your furture reference, when I refer to "Mathematics" I'm speaking quite literally about the entirety of the assumed axioms.

              And actually, addition can be defined as a theory built up from incrementation and decrementation. Considering you cannot moosh two clouds together without coming up with only one cloud, you can show that addition no longer holds water, (no pun intended) because it's fundamental precepts don't exist.
    • and then discovering what he can validate through experiments.

      Not really. Experiments don't validate anything. They may bolster a theory, or they may demolish it, but they can't validate it.

      And that, simply, is the difference between science and religion. Religionists *know*. They need to know. And it doesn't matter whether they know what they know, or if what they know is worth knowing. All that matters is that they *know*.

      Scientists, on the other hand, don't know. They don't even want to know, beca

Slashdot Top Deals

"The only way for a reporter to look at a politician is down." -- H.L. Mencken

Close