But Scientific battles amplified through political power would lead to the same kinds of issues

Logical Positivist? I used to hold onto logical positivism, mostly as I’d watched every Star Trek and other shows of the future that informed me that a utopia was possible if only we get rid of [x], [y], and [z].

Part of me still wants to believe it but unless you’re willing for the human race to go through genetic manipulation to improve our stock (which was called eugenics in earlier years and was a belief that was strong in the logical positivist movement), I don’t see any reason people wouldn’t continue being people with flaws amplified through political power and such.

Something like the United Nations does make the idea of a Utopian cooperation seem possible though, so I’m still hopeful, – but I don’t see anything particular in the STEM fields that would render our species any different than it is now in the future, unless there are specific programs of change you have in mind perhaps.

If there are, I’d like to know what they are. Maybe you’ll give me something to root for. But Scientific battles amplified through political power would lead to the same kinds of issues that politics have caused through the centuries. I see no reason why we’d change as a species. Maybe a better detante situation?

 

But, as it stands, to simply say “highly unlikely” is an article of faith and a statement of dogma unless shown otherwise. I can’t change my beliefs based upon your faith and dogma. I need more.

 

 

Religions are ideological movements. There are ideological movements within the sciences as well. People choose sides. Argue. Debate.

Religion-is-cause-of-all-human-ills is a very narrow, warped view of history that ignores much.

Think how absurd your position (which is the position of millions and it is the taught position in schools – the status quo worldview) really is?

“Religion caused everything bad.
We don’t know what a world is like without bad things because there has always been religion.
We should try removing religion to how many of the bad things go away.
Since religion caused everything bad, maybe if we remove all religion, all of the bad things will go away.”

 

We have tried the same thing about:

“What if we remove all land ownership?”

“What if we remove all hierarchies? They’re the cause of bad things.”

“What if we removed all politics?”

etc.

 

Soviet Russia tried it.

French Revolution tried it. Both of them were very iconoclastic in a not too dissimilar way.

 

China is trying it, although they made SOME concessions to the State to regulate a few, as long as they line up with State policies. Perhaps China’s model would work? I don’t know. Maybe they’re right.

 

These social experiments have and are already being tried.

 

The conflict is more modern than that,- it’s mostly 20th century in origin – the forces of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism – a 20th century movement – and it’s PRIMARILY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War – not thousands of years of conflict.

It’s a modern war with modern ideological origin of modern times, based upon attempts to “start from scratch” from texts, which forms it into a separate movement from the historical continuity within each of the cultures.

I really like those quotes from Richard Pipes. Yes, that is a good rule of thumb. A lot of historical revisionism took place in the 19th century, which we’ve inherited and untangling the messes is difficult.

They still strike me as warring cultures rather than religions though. How do you separate them?

Lines of religion and lines of geography are often one and the same. Lines of political leadership and lines of religion also correlate strongly. I still don’t see religion as the cause but rather power.

 

Thank you for the nod about tribalism although to say that “religion is born of politics”…. I’m having a little trouble swallowing that perspective. It’s a novel concept to me.

I’m willing to listen though.

I see religions as arising as powerful forces through the use of political power – but not borne of politics. The seeds of religion don’t seem born of politics but rather, politics give them armies and to me, they remain political armies who take advantage of symbolism and religious loyalty to gain the loyalty of the people: the religion turned into a force for nationalism. But ANY ideology can be used as a force for nationalism, not just religion. See: atheistic revolutions. Any ideology will work if enough people happen to already be a part of it.

So to me, the readings of history seem to favor seeing the politics of a region as separate from the religion of the region, and the rulers making political decision that favor the dominant religion of the people at the time.

This is also why I can easily imagine wars fought over scientific disagreements. Insert political power. That’s all that’s required.

 

That is how the sciences are supposed to work, yes. In practice, dogma becomes embedded within the sciences just as much as anywhere and hard to extract.

Absolutism is how religions are supposed to work, yes. In practice, skepticism (among many other reasons) leads to division and separation and the forming of factions.

Neither the sciences nor religion exist without the people, as nice as ideologies may sound on paper..

 

Also, a demand for skepticism becomes absolutism. Just saying.

Well, eugenics isn’t dead. It’s been transformed however utilizing DNA and things that are socially acceptable now that were not once. I’m not necessarily against it, mind you if it’s done right, but eugenics isn’t dead so long as one is trying to make what they consider a better future human race through the use of changing the genetic makeup of the species.

there’s definitely a promise of paradise within the culture of the sciences. Why is anyone pursuing it? Why the “search for answer?” What is it hoping to bring?

I’m pro-science and I believe that the sciences are the best ways at present to make a better tomorrow – in short – “lead to a utopia” – a paradise.

But I also recognize the strong religious component within the cult of the sciences, lofty talk of scientific ideals strikes me as no different from lofty talk of religious ideals in days of old.

Those social movements had their time, yes. But much of the ideology still carries on. Look at the various “wars on poverty” around the world. It can be argued that the very tying in of abortion to economics is a form of eugenics.

If there are fewer people born into poor families, that eliminates poverty.

That also eliminates many genetic lines.

I’m not anti-abortion mind you; I’m pro-choice. But the element is there.

We have to view our OWN culture with the same skepticism that we might view a culture of the past.

 

Not yet. Also, there is a HUGE influx of non-intellectuals within both scientism and atheism. Just look at forums and memes. It’s all over the place. There’s a change in culture happening and it’s been interesting to witness.

 

In my lifetime, I’m witnessed the birth of a set of new religious movements – interesting for the force with which they disavow the religiousity – and it’s been quite fascinating.

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


5 + = thirteen

Leave a Reply