So, lets throw out religion

[lowly_caterpillar]

Alright I have decide that this tangent on christianity and "world views" has gotten too personal and willy and I have started attacking each other instead of providing insight to the topic so once again I apologize.v*peace*v

[willy]

lowly caterpillar, I was not using my university education as a method of putting you down or me up. I was only suggesting that I was not completely ignorant and I do think about these things now and again. You are right my spelling is awful and always has been. God has given me many gifts but unfortunately spelling ain’t one of them.

World view IMO is just the premise for which you base your perception of reality. Be it Christian, or agnostic. I am aware that I view the world through a lens and I was only suggesting that you have a different lens.

If you challenge my faith I don't take it personally, but if you ask a question I do appreciate if it is honest question.

I do enjoy thinking about these things and looking at how others view them. Please do explain how you think the world looks and works. I find that more informative and quite frankly more interesting.

Tawasakm for example challenges my opinion and backs it up with a different view. It is much easier to disagree and not be personal or insulting.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Fallacies: Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity.

Terrible Sweal, I use authorities to understand many things. I can not possible know everything so I think we all make judgment calls on information based on where it comes from. In business I default to people like Drucker and Covey. In sport I look at great coaches and players. In philosophy and theology I look to great thinkers. This is not blind faith but an examination of what they say and then applying those thought to the other things I know. We are all bounded by our own experience so I would argue to some degree we all do this.

So as the scientific approach to life is applied, what methodology of measurement is acceptable and on what authority do you accept it?

True. We do not have the luxury of living in state of full information, and so reliance on authority can be a statistically beneficial strategy. However, it is only so if we don't abuse the strategy by making it a dogma.

In other words, the authorities of blackjack may tell you "never hit on a 17", and this makes sense. But it would be stupid to go by the authorities if you actually know the next card is a 4.

[lowly_caterpillar]

All in all i think that if we were to somehow ( I still cant fathom any method that might possibly work) abolish "religion" it would simply resurface under a new label, because as long as there is the metaphysical and as long as we're human we will always be seeking solace in answers however deranged they may be.

I do however think that attempting abolition of religion would positively reform peoples beliefs. All of the religious people that i've talked to (granted we're living in a privileged country) agree that the constant clasing of religions is a terrible thing and that it doesn't reflect the core beliefs of any religion. When people lose the social aspect of the church and lose the freedom of religion maybe then they will truly appreciate and understand the gap that it fills in many peoples (and possibly their lives).

I know many people who call themselves christians but who do not practice every rule in the book and who dont religiously attend church, yet I still consider them christian or at least people of faith, because when it boils down they still believe in a higher power, wether or not they "feel" this power is (to me anyway) irrelevant.

[Tawasakm]

All in all i think that if we were to somehow ( I still cant fathom any method that might possibly work) abolish "religion" it would simply resurface under a new label, because as long as there is the metaphysical and as long as we're human we will always be seeking solace in answers however deranged they may be.

Explain to me how religion, and only religion, can furnish us with satisfactory answers to metaphysical questions. Explain to me why people wouldn't be happy knowing that the answers they have are 'proven' and why they wouldn't be happy to wait for their system to produce the rest of the answers - which is to say true answers. When I use the term 'true answers' I mean answers built upon quantifiable evidence and tested theories etc. There would be, to my mind, more substance to their beliefs. There is no reason to believe that people who are dedicated to such a system would need to have an answer, any answer, just for the sake of having an answer.

As to how religion is abolished remember that it is part of the theoretical that this society has decided for itself that it wants to try this more rational method. They want to rebuild their systems and beliefs around that which is quantifiable. It is possible because they are all behind it. And remember - it is just a theoretical construct designed to allow an exploration of a certain question.

[Tawasakm]

If you don't mind, Lowly_Caterpillar I'd like to draw your attention back to the question asked in my previous post in case you missed it.

I'm also wondering if you have researched your earlier point regarding religion providing the earliest 'moral compass' (if I remember the gist of your argument correctly).

Look forward to hearing from you. Also from any others who may have a take on unique and necessary services religions perform that cannot be replaced by any other means.

[lowly_caterpillar]

I have thought about the earlier question and unfortunately haven't drawn any useful conclusions I did, however, find an interesting view on Darwinism (I don't completely agree with it but I don't condemn it either). Would Darwin's idea be the premise for this new society?

Explain to me how religion, and only religion, can furnish us with satisfactory answers to metaphysical questions. Explain to me why people wouldn't be happy knowing that the answers they have are 'proven' and why they wouldn't be happy to wait for their system to produce the rest of the answers

I don't think that "religion" is the only answer to metaphysical questions, but I think that as long as it's the easier way to find answers people will be tempted to abide by it. By "easy" I mean that in comparison to science religion bases itself on stories that claim to have been witnessed and rely on faith for propagation of these stories, whereas science requires a huge series of hypothises and proofs for us to believe in its virtue so, if this society had agreed to follow proof and not the simpler roots of fables then I think it would prosper.

I'm not sure if that made any sense so please respond with some feedback.

[Tawasakm]

I have thought about the earlier question and unfortunately haven't drawn any useful conclusions I did, however, find an interesting view on Darwinism (I don't completely agree with it but I don't condemn it either). Would Darwin's idea be the premise for this new society?

The scientific method would be their premise for establishing knowledge and beliefs about the world. If Darwinism is supported by this methodology it logically follows they would support it. However there are problems with Darwinism. Certainly if you are referring to Social Darwinism I can't see the society supporting it. This branch of Darwinism was a pseudo-science (in other words non-science in the name of science) that espoused the view that white anglo saxons were at the top of the evolutionary ladder. It is as a result of this science and such beliefs that Australia was declared 'terra nullius' (empty land) and settled by the British. In case you miss the implication it is this - Aboriginals were declared to be non-human (somewhere between monkeys and humans). I can't see a rational society swallowing such rubbish.

I'm not sure if that made any sense so please respond with some feedback.

Well it seems to me that what you are saying is that the easy answers (religion) provide immediate comfort. By contrast the hard answers (as gained by our hypothetical) do not provide that immediate comfort. But if people can learn not to need that 'comfort zone' around their ignorance then they will arrive at far more meaningful answers and, as a result of both the journey and the conclusion, will have grown more as a result.

If thats what you were trying to say then I'm with you. If its not then please try again

[MapleBear]

There are problems with Darwinism. Certainly if you are referring to Social Darwinism I can't see the  society supporting it. This branch of Darwinism was a pseudo-science (in other words non-science in the name of science) that espoused the view that white anglo saxons were at the top of the evolutionary ladder. It is as a result of this science and such beliefs that Australia was declared 'terra nullius' (empty land) and settled by the British. In case you miss the implication it is this - Aboriginals were declared to be non-human (somewhere between monkeys and humans). I can't see a rational society swallowing such rubbish.

It sounds like you're confusing science with biased science and the interpretation of science. A scientist can come up with a perfectly good theory, and someone else can distort that theory and use it to advance a sinister agenda.

Republicans are very good at this. People like former Washington State Governor Dixie Lee Ray and Rush Libaugh are noted for taking facts and ideas out of context, promoting a sort of "junk science" while dismissing scientists' ideas as "junk science."

I don't know if Darwin was a racist or not, nor does it matter, as long as his theory's sound. But I highly doubt that Darwin traveled to the Galapagos Islands with the intention of brainstorming a scam that could be used to keep Australian Aborigines down.

[Tawasakm]

It sounds like you're confusing science with biased science and the interpretation of science. A scientist can come up with a perfectly good theory, and someone else can distort that theory and use it to advance a sinister agenda.

Nonsense. I explicitly said:

This branch of Darwinism was a pseudo-science (in other words non-science in the name of science)

I was attempting to answer lowly_caterpillars question about whether or not Darwinism would be the premise for the society. I explained that the scientific method would be the basis for establishing knowledge and beliefs. I then explained that any part of Darwinism that met these standards must logically be accepted. I then pointed out that there are parts of that, at least, which aren't scientifically supported.

I don't know if Darwin was a racist or not, nor does it matter, as long as his theory's sound. But I highly doubt that Darwin traveled to the Galapagos Islands with the intention of brainstorming a scam that could be used to keep Australian Aborigines down.

You are being disengenious. I was talking about Social Darwinism which was grown out of Darwinism. It took the principle of 'survival of the fittest' and applied it to humanity (in a biased way). Proponents of social darwinism came up with some very questionable (easily seen as wrong these days) physical evidence to support their theory. It was accepted as science by many because of its attachment to Darwins theory of evolution. I used the the example of Australian Aboriginals to explain, in part, the implications of such a theory when accepted. I was not referring to Charles Darwin himself. I don't see where I was theorising that he was "brainstorming a scam that could be used to keep Australian Aborigines down." So I don't really understand the point or criticism you are trying to make.

[lowly_caterpillar]

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0111...nion/wiker.html

this is the website where I read up on social Darwinism, and was exposed to Darwin's racism which (i'm not condoning it by saying this)was acceptable and the norm in his day.

Yes Tawasakm that's exactly what I meant.

So in this society education would center more around scientific education than non-scientific metaphysical explanations like mythology and shakespeare?

[Tawasakm]

So in this society education would center more around scientific education than non-scientific metaphysical explanations like mythology and shakespeare?

That is the premise we've been operating on. However your question raises an interesting point (by reference to Shakespeare) which I had not previously thought of. What would be the role of art in such a society?

I need to give this more thought. That said my first reaction was that art could still play an integral role in life. Appreciation of artisitic thought and expression could still exist I believe. Music could still be appreciated, landscapes still admired, as could sculptures and so on and so forth. But I wonder if they would have the same appreciation of art. Would they, for instance, have any time for abstract art? They might not have time for such nebulous concepts but only appreciate that which expressed reality as they accepted it. Or they might accept art as representative of how people outside their borders feel. Or perhaps they could simply accept art as an expression of feeling (bearing in mind that they aren't logical and emotionless Vulcans). I suppose they could divide arts into two parts: that which depicts reality (which of course they define by scientific methodology) and that which depicts feeling.

I had thought at first that such a society might not produce as much art. But I am now asking myself if through their journey they have a greater use for art then us - because they have more to express (over time and assuming their methodology continues to provide new answers and insights). Or, from a different perspective, their art might express that which is unkown and which they wait to discover.

Hmmm well I think this post is a little scatterbrained. I think I'll go apply actual thought to this before continuing.

[lowly_caterpillar]

But I am now asking myself if through their journey they have a greater use for art then us - because they have more to express (over time and assuming their methodology continues to provide new answers and insights). Or, from a different perspective, their art might express that which is unkown and which they wait to discover.

I agree that such a society would have more need for art, but I don't think that they would realize this, because as I see it practicality would become the only thing acceptable and art wouldn't fit into this mold, Shakespeare whos plays I thoroughly enjoy and take delight in would be of no importance compared to a physics or biology textbook. This society would be rigid and unemotional not because of lack of religion but because of lack of interest in the metaphysical or I guess you could say too much interest in the metaphysical(The Learned Astronomer) so that they would smother it in scientific proof and obliterate any whimsy and reverie that makes us humans so interesting.

Also, as

that which is unkown and which they wait to discover

becomes more specific and less mystifying no one would spend (to this society it would be waste) the time making art they would reserve their time for their addiction to science. This hypothetical world would soon realize its fault in overexcertion and In my opinion start to compensate for their misery with something along the lines of SOMA.(yeah I went there)

sorry for the run on sentences

heres a link to When I heard The Learned Astronomer by Walt Whitman

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/barnes/a...10/whitman.html

[Tawasakm]

practicality would become the only thing acceptable and art wouldn't fit into this mold

Considering, for instance, that musical ability has been linked to mathematical ability theres no reason to believe it would not be firmly entrenched in this hypothetical world and appreciated. It simply wouldn't be a part of their belief system (concerning the reality of the world).

Shakespeare whos plays I thoroughly enjoy and take delight in would be of no importance compared to a physics or biology textbook.

No doubt science would be the most important subject to teach. Who says it would be the only one? So long as Shakespear is understood in such a way that he does not contribute to peoples belief systems (beyond believing it was a good read - or not as the case may be). Empirical evidence may indicate that some knowledge of, and expression, of the arts contributes to overall well being and development. I believe there are studies to that affect now but don't have them at my fingertips. Certainly art and craft is built into young childrens education as an essential part of development and learning. Helps develop co-ordination too (fine motor skills).

This society would be rigid and unemotional not because of lack of religion but because of lack of interest in the metaphysical or I guess you could say too much interest in the metaphysical

I addressed the point of lack of emotion earlier. I don't see any reason they would behave that way. A Vulcan stereotype where logic alone is being propagated. Well humans aren't Vulcans and in the fields of psychology and psychiatry emotions, and emotinal well-being, have been extensively studied and quantified. They are attempting to discard answers which are not proven empirically remember - not to remove a central part of humanity (no mass labotamies).

As to their interest or lack of interest in seeking answers to metaphysical questions I don't understand how that would affect their emotional levels? You'll need to explain that to me more clearly. I wonder if their search for metaphysical answers would begin with quantum physics... which seems likely but I wonder how else they may examine the question.

obliterate any whimsy and reverie that makes us humans so interesting.

Theres still room, to pick an example, for humour - which makes us human. I also don't understand why there is no place for reverie? You'll need to explain that to me more clearly aswell. I see nothing about this society which would prevent people from being instrospective, reflective, enquiring or even from daydreaming.

This hypothetical world would soon realize its fault in overexcertion and In my opinion start to compensate for their misery with something along the lines of SOMA.

Over-exertion in what? Applying the scientific method? Why would that make them miserable? You seem to think it will reach 'obsessive' levels. Why believe that?

By SOMA do you mean the concert in San Diego?

sorry for the run on sentences

I have no problem with them - no need for apologies.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What would be the role of art in such a society?

I need to give this more thought. That said my first reaction was that art could still play an integral role in life. Appreciation of artisitic thought and expression could still exist I believe.

I don't see why art poses any difficulty. A substantial body of art has been initiated or inspired by religious topics and impulses, true. But certainly a huge body of art exists unconnected to religion as well.

Also, I don't think permitting the conduct of artistic activity art is in any way necessarily incompatible with exclusion of religion.

[Tawasakm]

Thats the conclusion I came to also Terrible Sweal. Apologies if I've been too incoherent in my last posts to convey that.

[lowly_caterpillar]

By SOMA I mean the drug used in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", they took "SOMA holidays" to escape from the logic of their world.(Read the book it's awesome.)

I don't see why art poses any difficulty. A substantial body of art has been initiated or inspired by religious topics and impulses, true. But certainly a huge body of art exists unconnected to religion as well.

It's not only art inspired by religion,but all art that expresses metaphysical things or emotion (which in this society would be explained as chemicals intermingling in one's brain), I just don't see how such a society would have time for this if they had all agreed to explain things with science as opposed to religion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, by abolishing religion it might lead to abolishment of other flowery explanations for the metaphysical such as shakespeare.

I have read "Brave New World" and am currently reading "1984" and both of these books explore elements of this topic. Neither hypothetical world has religion, one of them is (in my view) a satire of Stalin's Russia whereas the other (BNW) shows a world where huhmans have evolved so much and exploited science so much that they are conditioning their babies and letting their universe center around science.

(To tie in another post, the mathematics involved in music are used as formulas for mind pleasing music and are created entirely synthetically in Brave New World)

I'm not a book snob, I just happen to be studying these in school right now and surprise!surprise! their extremely relevant!

[Tawasakm]

which in this society would be explained as chemicals intermingling in one's brain

How does that stop people feeling? A feeling is still a feeling. BTW I know plenty of psychologists (who believe emotions are explained as chemicals) who are happy, laughing expressive people.

By SOMA I mean the drug used in Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World", they took "SOMA holidays" to escape from the logic of their world.(Read the book it's awesome.)

You seem to hold this belief that some of the natural parts of these people will be repressed and they will need to 'escape' later. Explain to me why all of the above would be necessary. Why would science kill feeling? Think of all the great scientist documentary makers who all seem so full of vim and vigour. In fact the the abolition of religion may remove an impediment to emotional feeling and expressivity since there is no longer a belief that we are 'sinners' etc,

Anyway got to dash for a little bit. More later.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It's not only art inspired by religion,but all art that expresses metaphysical things or emotion (which in this society would be explained as chemicals intermingling in one's brain), I just don't see how such a society would have time for this if they had all agreed to explain things with science as opposed to religion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, by abolishing religion it might lead to abolishment of other flowery explanations for the metaphysical such as shakespeare.

This seems to be a question about interpreting the specifics of the hypothetical. It seems to me that this society would have to accept/acknowledge/admit that there is a realm of what is 'unknown'. Art may include reference to or comment on the 'unknown, but it is distinguishable from religion in the sense it makes no claim about the unknown.

[Tawasakm]

OK lowly_caterpillar I think I understand your problem here. You don't see how art can express anything to with the metaphysic without having answers.

Here are three examples. Such art could express 1) the unknown 2) the journey/search for the knowledge 3) the desire to know

And so on and so forth. So you can see that artistic expression of the unknown need not contravene the rules of the hypothetical. Also TTS raised the very valid point any art would not do so, so long as it did not lay claim to factual knowledge about the unkown.

In addition to this art could be simply an expression of feeling. Feelings are real and quantifiable so theres no reason to prohibit such expression.

[lowly_caterpillar]

How does that stop people feeling? A feeling is still a feeling. BTW I know plenty of psychologists (who believe emotions are explained as chemicals) who are happy, laughing expressive people.

I didn't mean to say that it would STOP their feeling but they just wouldnt see the use in expressing those feelings in art they would simply express them as formulae and graphs.

Art may include reference to or comment on the 'unknown, but it is distinguishable from religion in the sense it makes no claim about the unknown.

This I agree with, but don't you think that by abolishing religion to simplify the worlds belief system it would lead to other simplifications until they realize that theyve gone too far and have indeed become vulcan-like?

But then ( to completely contradict myself) if this society was able to set aside their differences and agree on science instead of religion then I guess they would be smart enough not to push this abolishment thing too far.

[lowly_caterpillar]

wow I seem to be getting nowhere.

[Tawasakm]

I didn't mean to say that it would STOP their feeling but they just wouldnt see the use in expressing those feelings in art they would simply express them as formulae and graphs

Why? They are basing their belief system on observable, quantifiable evidence which probably means they'd know alot about statistics. Why does that mean that they can only express themselves that way?

This I agree with, but don't you think that by abolishing religion to simplify the worlds belief system it would lead to other simplifications until they realize that theyve gone too far and have indeed become vulcan-like?

First of all I think religion, which answers metaphysical questions without recourse to quantifiable evidence, is the one that is simplifying. This society is expressly AVOIDING simplifying things. They are neither seeking to simplify or complicate but rather to discover answers which are supported empirically. Why should they be simplifying anything because of this?

I can't understand your pre-supposition that a dedication to the scientific method leads to a vulcan-like disposition and attitude. Do you know many people who share the same dedication? I don't mean simply as lecturers but rather as people you know day to day? Are the bulk of them vulcan like? In my experience that is not so. In my expreince those that are more unemotional in thought and action spread across many demographics and don't appear to be centred in the scientific community.

[willy]

So say you had a cake and it had candles on it. You wanted to find out why the cake was there. The scientists started to run the tests. It has sugar and flour and the candles are wax. The candles will burn and stay burning for 15 minutes. The colour is white of the out side is white and the inside is brown. The cake weights 1500 grams and takes up 20 cubic cm. We then observed the cake and it just got old.

What test could you run on the cake to find out why it was made?

This is the problem in science, it does a great job of examining what but it is incapable of answering why.

By the way it is a birthday cake for a family. The cake was made to make a little girl feel special and her mom new chocolate was her favorite.

[Tawasakm]

I'm not sure thats a good example. Science is not isolated - it draws from many sources and disciplines. It is known what flour is. It has been examined. So has yeast. And all the other ingredients of a cake. It is known what happens when different ingredients are combined and how the react to temperature etc.

The only way I can see your example being somewhat valid is if it is an alien cake not of this world - and none of its components exist here. Then it is a completely isolated area of research. With anything on this planet there can always be knoweldge drawn from elsewhere.

I hope I managed to explain that properly. I've been working late and am bone tired. I was happy to see you back in the thread, though, so I replied straight away.