Peace. See, I talk on forums just to shoot the shit. It's not meant to determine great things, it's not serious debate. It's just talk. In person, I *loathe* small talk, but on the net...
So allow me to start again.
Proposition: Religions serve a variety of purposes in human societies. One that I've noted is in state formation. When polities move beyond the ethnic chiefdom, they need a new glue, and often that is religion. It's the process that took the elegant philosophy of the Buddha and created a feudal theocracy in Tibet. Curiously, it also seems to have happened in the USSR and the PRC, despite both states being avowed atheists. The degree to which some of the customs of those societies mimicked religion is uncanny. Of course, there are counter examples - the USA didn't go so far down the same path, though we play with it more than we should. So, when you create a modern multiethnic polity, based on the principles of secular humanism, what risk is there of the 'canonization' of science? Do such societies simply need these legends?
Yeah, I saw an example that really bugged me. Since them I've been looking and thinking. Part of the problem is that whenever I mention the idea of science and secular humanism taking on religious characteristics, the resident proponents blow a gasket. That, to me, is telling - they have a personal attachment to their ideas, tied to their sense of self. Many such folks have some peculiar ideas, like defining 'religion' as inherently false or that it always involves God.
That's not how I see it. Yep, it's the dictionary definition, but there's more there. There's also the summation of a person's coherent worldview. To me, everyone has a religion. It's the combination of your beliefs on cosmology, eschatology, teleology, theology, morality and other fields. I don't see belief in the God of Abraham and belief in No God as fundamentally different. However, after being dragged down by semantic one too many times, I've yield and now use the word 'dharma' instead of 'religion' to describe this.
What is the difference between believing something that's true and knowing a fact? In the modern age, the beliefs of the masses have change a lot. Say, most people now believe matter is made of atoms, rather than the four elements. That's true (don't pick), but the fundamental mental process is the same. It's still belief. There's still a class of sorcerer-priests who hand down the Law, and people take it on faith. It can't really be any other way, so well and good. But there are sociological issues that go along with this process - you can see the wheels turning in every society on the planet. Is this making any sense at all? I'm trying to say that when scientists become the arbiters of Truth, there are secondary sociological processes that come into play. You can see it happen in the history of the USSR. As our cultures become more secular, we will see more of this within our societies.
Okay, is that well stated enough?
So allow me to start again.
Proposition: Religions serve a variety of purposes in human societies. One that I've noted is in state formation. When polities move beyond the ethnic chiefdom, they need a new glue, and often that is religion. It's the process that took the elegant philosophy of the Buddha and created a feudal theocracy in Tibet. Curiously, it also seems to have happened in the USSR and the PRC, despite both states being avowed atheists. The degree to which some of the customs of those societies mimicked religion is uncanny. Of course, there are counter examples - the USA didn't go so far down the same path, though we play with it more than we should. So, when you create a modern multiethnic polity, based on the principles of secular humanism, what risk is there of the 'canonization' of science? Do such societies simply need these legends?
Yeah, I saw an example that really bugged me. Since them I've been looking and thinking. Part of the problem is that whenever I mention the idea of science and secular humanism taking on religious characteristics, the resident proponents blow a gasket. That, to me, is telling - they have a personal attachment to their ideas, tied to their sense of self. Many such folks have some peculiar ideas, like defining 'religion' as inherently false or that it always involves God.
That's not how I see it. Yep, it's the dictionary definition, but there's more there. There's also the summation of a person's coherent worldview. To me, everyone has a religion. It's the combination of your beliefs on cosmology, eschatology, teleology, theology, morality and other fields. I don't see belief in the God of Abraham and belief in No God as fundamentally different. However, after being dragged down by semantic one too many times, I've yield and now use the word 'dharma' instead of 'religion' to describe this.
What is the difference between believing something that's true and knowing a fact? In the modern age, the beliefs of the masses have change a lot. Say, most people now believe matter is made of atoms, rather than the four elements. That's true (don't pick), but the fundamental mental process is the same. It's still belief. There's still a class of sorcerer-priests who hand down the Law, and people take it on faith. It can't really be any other way, so well and good. But there are sociological issues that go along with this process - you can see the wheels turning in every society on the planet. Is this making any sense at all? I'm trying to say that when scientists become the arbiters of Truth, there are secondary sociological processes that come into play. You can see it happen in the history of the USSR. As our cultures become more secular, we will see more of this within our societies.
Okay, is that well stated enough?
