christianity doesnt have to hamper progress

[rtil]

i don't disagree with you. science is apolitical. and paired with secular morality it can be used for good.

but christianity was never 'just' a moral code, christanity asks for a lifetime of sacrifice, humility and complete devotion. it could be argued it was designed for the sole intention of abuse of power via theocracy. it's fundamentally designed to be used in that way.

[Bamyasi]

psuedoscience doesn't get through peer review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

Also, interesting clip from The Pervert's Guide to Ideology:

Žižek on Atheism and Christianity

[crackers]

this thread

pretentious

[valiums]

Also, interesting clip from The Pervert's Guide to Ideology:

Žižek on Atheism and Christianity

Oh wow, that is such an interesting idea.

[rtil]

psuedoscience doesn't get through peer review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_affair

a decent google attempt, however theoretical physics isn't psuedoscience, and just because something is published in a peer reviewed journal doesn't mean it isnt' subject to scrutiny, in fact, that is why the papers are submitted in the first place, and is the whole point of the scientific method. the fact they were published is regrettable, but obviously they were routed out and heavily criticized once they were subject to the entire scientific community. this doesn't happen in the world of christian science

there are exceptions to any rule, and the peer review system is flawed in the sense that it is only based on our current understanding of science which is subject to change at any time

this thread

pretentious

you don't know the meaning of that word

[Bamyasi]

Yeah but you have to wonder how many scientific progressions we (the public) currently take for granted won't be thought of similarly in the future.

I'm not saying this is a problem in itself, quite the opposite, but when most people get their science from places like TED and io9, you also have to wonder if we aren't living in another dark age, or at least a profoundly hyperreal one.

And that isn't really a problem either (and here's where you rip me apart), but when scientists have to generate hype for their findings using a combination of dry. scientific data and juicy pop-science/pop-psychology jargon the public understands (and I'm willing to bet the former is largely abandoned for the latter) in order to receive grant money (you see this a lot in neuroscience and genetics but also elsewhere), and this flawed understanding is used to (perhaps literally) kickstart, I don't know, a genetic revolution, then we might have a problem. You already see companies like 23andMe exploiting this energy.

Maybe it's because I didn't grow up in a religious household, but a mob of misinformed, albeit scientifically minded individuals scares me just as much as a religious herd who will interpret Venus syndrome as the Second Coming.

That's why I'm skeptical of "progress" as a public interest. Most people (including myself) don't know a mole of electrons from a mole on their ass, and think of the latest iPhone as some great stride toward the betterment of civilization. Watch out for us.

[rtil]

from my understanding it's usually not the scientists who overhype their own findings, but rather science-focused articles written by laymen who are nothing more than enthusiasts. the material is "dumbed down" for lack of a better phrase so the general populace can understand it, and the findings are made exciting through a clickbait title to get people to read it. more often than not the article is misleading or overly ambitious about the findings. a common example would be a case where scientists are able to replicate something in a controlled environment, and the person who writes the article fails to mention this, making the findings seem more promising than they actually are. scientists themselves are typically far more cautious than this, otherwise we'd be hearing about a "cure" for cancer every other day (and you will if you go on reddit!)

[rtil]

No, that's not at all what I'm saying at all. It's obviously possible to derive morality from non-religious sources. And I'm certainly not claiming that religion invented morality. I was making a cute little tangent that I'll elaborate more on: the western world after the 18th century Enlightenment really, really hates codified ethics. And codified ethics does not mean "religion". It encompasses both religious and secular ethics. Public discourse in the 21st century is overwhelmingly afraid of words like "morality". This is supremely off-topic so I'll drop it after this post. If you want to know more about this, feel free to ask.

i'm unfamiliar with this phenomenon but i'm curious

Sorry this is just wrong. The average person doesn't give two shits about how corrupt the Catholic church is and knows nothing about current events (aside from, perhaps, the Catholic molestation cases). If you analyze sociologically why people leave the Catholic church, or just Christianity or religion in general, it's certainly not because of corrupt laws. They leave peacefully and quietly because they don't understand ethics, don't understand religion, and they just don't want to deal with the complications of formal ethical rules. They'd rather just accept some sort of gut feelings for ethics without really thinking that much about it.

i wasn't talking about the average person but in this context i agree with you. the average American mostly sees western christianity as an obligation, and most identify as christian while understanding very little of what they claim to subscribe to.

We possess indeed simulacra of morality, we continue to use many of the key expressions. But we have — very largely, if not entirely — lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality.

this is assuming that mankind ever had a complete grasp of morality? if so i disagree

[rtil]

No, that's not at all what I'm saying at all. It's obviously possible to derive morality from non-religious sources. And I'm certainly not claiming that religion invented morality. I was making a cute little tangent that I'll elaborate more on: the western world after the 18th century Enlightenment really, really hates codified ethics. And codified ethics does not mean "religion". It encompasses both religious and secular ethics. Public discourse in the 21st century is overwhelmingly afraid of words like "morality". This is supremely off-topic so I'll drop it after this post. If you want to know more about this, feel free to ask.

i'm unfamiliar with this phenomenon but i'm curious

Basically it's like this: have you ever heard people say, "Don't JUDGE this, man." or "That's just your OPINION." or "That's just a moral judgement, not a scientific or logical conclusion."

Let me illustrate by example:

1. Gay marriage should be allowed because you shouldn't pass judgement on love.

Objection to 1: Gay marriage may be perfectly right or wrong, but regardless of your position you're going to have to "judge" it some way. Consider how we "judge" that marriage to minors (<18) is illegal, or that marriage to dogs and shoes is illegal. Clearly, there is a line to be drawn, and not all forms of love are categorically correct. Even the response that "Children and dogs cannot meaningfully consent to marriage!" is itself a judgement, and the idea that judgement is wrong is therefore self-defeating.

2. Abortion should be allowed, because we must be neutral about abortion and allowing it is the most neutral choice.

Objection to 2: Moral neutrality in the context of abortion is completely impossible, because regardless of your position on abortion you're going to have to answer the question "Is this fetus a life or a mere object?" with an active answer. This answer is a moral judgement. Avoiding it is impossible. You cannot scientifically or mathematically explain why abortion is right or wrong. You must instead have an active moral opinion about it.

These two examples make clear our present-day obsession with "judgement-free" or "neutral" moral language. But again, this is impossible. There is no meaningful ethical framework that is truly neutral. It is inevitable that you will pass moral judgement. Appeals to concepts like "human rights" and "freedom" will still rely on judgements, and indeed there is absolutely nothing wrong with judging things.

are there actually people who don't have an opinion on something like abortion? seems hard to believe. i've never heard anyone say they were neutral on the subject.

We possess indeed simulacra of morality, we continue to use many of the key expressions. But we have — very largely, if not entirely — lost our comprehension, both theoretical and practical, of morality.

this is assuming that mankind ever had a complete grasp of morality? if so i disagree

Nah, the basic argument is that we've inherited words like "meaning of life", "good person", "justice", and "human rights" but we have no idea what they actually mean. It's related to how cultural taboos are sometimes blindly followed even though the context that gave rise to them faded away long ago. This is related to the point I talked about above.

i don't completely agree with this but some of these kinds of ideas are far more nebulous than others. for example i think human rights has come a long way in the last century or two but we probably still have a long way to go. but something like the meaning of life will always vary from person to person since people tend to find their own meaning, but at the same time we have an instinctual desire to survive as a species and i think that it drives that to some point. still, all these things are mostly ideas that we have developed as a species and if we perished they would with us which is pretty fascinating in itself.

[michaell]

basketweaver

i think that whether the enlightment ideas paved the way for xx/xxi century 'libertinism' is a vexed matter

the enlightment thinkers emphasised the need for things such as a codified constitution or a set of basic human rights. that is when terms such as rule of law originated. all of these are the contradiction of the baroque model of unrestrained absolute monarchies. the monarchs not only exercised unlimited political power but also adhered to the concept of 'divine rights' meaning they had been chosed by god which also reflected in their everyday actions, like with promiscuity being very common back then which is obviously incompatible with the churchs teachings.

the XIX century was really when ideologies such as marxism, anarchism etc were conceived and were the most trenchant opponents of the intransigent concert of europe.

but i think WW I and the 60s are really behind the upheavals. ww i saw the demise of the three most powerful and conservative monarchies in europe, russia germany and austro-hungary which were the bastion of conservatism back then. this gave rise to ideologies such as nazism and communism which were hostile to any old values. the end of ww ii brought communism to eastern european countries and secularisation/democratisation to the formerly axis aligned ones.

note that the 60s and 70s saw the rise of social democrats in europe which despite their reformism still originated as branches of marxism which condoned abortion and homosexuality. those governments legalised both

[creamcorn]

could someone summarize this thread into one or two memes cuz i aint reading this shit

[rtil]

could someone summarize this thread into one or two memes cuz i aint reading this shit

philosoraptor + in soviet russia

i don't actually have a macro but those are the two i'd use

[crackers]

and

[creamcorn]

nice

[Bamyasi]

from my understanding it's usually not the scientists who overhype their own findings, but rather science-focused articles written by laymen who are nothing more than enthusiasts. the material is "dumbed down" for lack of a better phrase so the general populace can understand it, and the findings are made exciting through a clickbait title to get people to read it. more often than not the article is misleading or overly ambitious about the findings. a common example would be a case where scientists are able to replicate something in a controlled environment, and the person who writes the article fails to mention this, making the findings seem more promising than they actually are. scientists themselves are typically far more cautious than this, otherwise we'd be hearing about a "cure" for cancer every other day (and you will if you go on reddit!)

Sorry for the late as fuck response but I was pretty busy when this thread was posted and really wanted a chance to discuss this with you, and I still can't find these two really good articles I used to have bookmarked. You're right about reactionary journalists being a problem, that's pretty much the case across the board, but I think scientists who don't take responsibility for the misrepresented data are also to blame, as well as the ignorant masses. Only a few, like the previously mentioned Sagan, Tyson, Hawking and Dawkins really ever even had that much clout with with press or public anyway. This is somewhat tangential to that point but scientific misconduct/fraud does happen. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

If you watch the Zizek video I posted, he basically argues that Christianity is ideologically identical to other movements like Communism, Neoliberalism, Feminism and Humanism in their emphases on egalitarianism. I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say science is a religion like some other idiots might, but like religion it does have dogmas, which one may euphimize as paradigm or epistime or whatever, and I would argue press friendly scientists have assumed the roles of high priests in that regard, in a purely metaphorical sense of course (in that, compared to the general population, they are (scientifically) literate, work at CERN, and thus hold the keys to truth). This poor communication between priest and flock is really mostly a problem in fields like neuroscience (where biological minutiae of the microcosm are used to explain psychological phenomena of the macrocosm so the former may seem relevant to laymen) and genetics (where value based judgements are made on the multifaceted effects of individual genes so laymen can feel subjugated by a larger force (i.e. God)). At best, this kind of pseudoscience is exploited to sell brain training apps that don't fucking work (Lumosity). At worst, it's used to drive the cultivation of an ideal populace (Genocide).

The Bogdanov affair is typically brought up in tandem with the Sokal hoax when discussing the "Science Wars" of the 1990's, that's the only reason I knew about it. I don't know why it seemed more relevant when I posted it.

tl;dr: Science is never a problem in and of itself but pseudoscience + misinformed crowd (i.e. me and people who read FuckYeahScience) might be. I'm really tired.

[rtil]

from my understanding it's usually not the scientists who overhype their own findings, but rather science-focused articles written by laymen who are nothing more than enthusiasts. the material is "dumbed down" for lack of a better phrase so the general populace can understand it, and the findings are made exciting through a clickbait title to get people to read it. more often than not the article is misleading or overly ambitious about the findings. a common example would be a case where scientists are able to replicate something in a controlled environment, and the person who writes the article fails to mention this, making the findings seem more promising than they actually are. scientists themselves are typically far more cautious than this, otherwise we'd be hearing about a "cure" for cancer every other day (and you will if you go on reddit!)

Sorry for the late as fuck response but I was pretty busy when this thread was posted and really wanted a chance to discuss this with you, and I still can't find these two really good articles I used to have bookmarked. You're right about reactionary journalists being a problem, that's pretty much the case across the board, but I think scientists who don't take responsibility for the misrepresented data are also to blame, as well as the ignorant masses. Only a few, like the previously mentioned Sagan, Tyson, Hawking and Dawkins really ever even had that much clout with with press or public anyway. This is somewhat tangential to that point but scientific misconduct/fraud does happen. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

well of course it happens, i never would suggest that it doesn't. scientists are human beings just like the rest of us. they are fallible, they make mistakes. my point was that the mechanisms of science work and will continue to work with or without us.

If you watch the Zizek video I posted, he basically argues that Christianity is ideologically identical to other movements like Communism, Neoliberalism, Feminism and Humanism in their emphases on egalitarianism. I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say science is a religion like some other idiots might, but like religion it does have dogmas, which one may euphimize as paradigm or epistime or whatever, and I would argue press friendly scientists have assumed the roles of high priests in that regard, in a purely metaphorical sense of course (in that, compared to the general population, they are (scientifically) literate, work at CERN, and thus hold the keys to truth). This poor communication between priest and flock is really mostly a problem in fields like neuroscience (where biological minutiae of the microcosm are used to explain psychological phenomena of the macrocosm so the former may seem relevant to laymen) and genetics (where value based judgements are made on the multifaceted effects of individual genes so laymen can feel subjugated by a larger force (i.e. God)). At best, this kind of pseudoscience is exploited to sell brain training apps that don't fucking work (Lumosity). At worst, it's used to drive the cultivation of an ideal populace (Genocide).

The Bogdanov affair is typically brought up in tandem with the Sokal hoax when discussing the "Science Wars" of the 1990's, that's the only reason I knew about it. I don't know why it seemed more relevant when I posted it.

tl;dr: Science is never a problem in and of itself but pseudoscience + misinformed crowd (i.e. me and people who read FuckYeahScience) might be. I'm really tired.

the key difference which i'm sure you're aware of is that scientific claims can be tested and thus held up to public scrutiny. you can call someone out on their bullshit and actually prove it. religious claims involve the supernatural - they cannot be tested because they are intangible. you must either disregard it or accept it entirely on faith. some psuedoscience works in this way, and it's an easy way to tell if someone's trying to sell you snake oil.

i didn't watch the video and i won't watch the video, but christianity is not inherently egalitarian and many sects and divisions of christianity are anything but.

[Bamyasi]

Yeah but my point is that the public can't tell the difference.

[rtil]

they could if they wanted to