Religion "will endure"

[ant]

Ant asks if a "scientific worldview" could ever become viable? Well, yes, of course. I think it already is viable for many people

This is an answer with no content.

SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW

SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW

WHAT MAKES A SCIENTIFIC WORLDVIEW MORE VIABLE THAN OTHER WORLDVIEWS?

Let's try to stay on point here:

What aspect of science formulates a (yours in particular) a scientific worldview?

The complexity of science and its methodological aspects present numerous hypotheses and theories, all of which are in a constant state of flux due to the gathering of data, interpretation, re-interpretation of data, and the re-re-interpretation of new data as it is observed in an environment that is ever changing.

How do you determine which scientific hypothesis adds meaning to your (a) scientific worldview as opposed to competing hypothesis? Is it the hypothesis that is printed in Discovery Magazine that adds meaning to your (a) worldview?

[ant]

Note:

Please dont bore me with answers like:

It's evidence that I value and not superstition!
I value rationality and evidence and govern my life by it.
I don't believe in things there is no evidence for, like Zeus, Odin, or fairies.
Because I know that molecules and particles, and not God, cause light to bend in different directions, which results in the beautiful colors of a sunset, my worldview is scientific and meaningful to me.

[ant]

...

Do you have something to say?

Is your worldview more scientific than someone like Francis Collins?

[geo]

I'm always a little suspicious when I see quotes taken out of context. Anyway, this particular quote (about how religion will endure) is taken from E.O. Wilson's Pulitzer prize-winning book, ON HUMAN NATURE. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much more than what has already been quoted, although it's interesting to see the preceding paragraph at least.

The statement that religion will endure is quoted a lot, but the preceding sentence (that theology is not likely to survive) is often left out. I'm still left wondering where E.O. Wilson is going with this. It seems part of a larger thought.

In any event, looks like a good book.

. . . we have come to the crucial stage in the history of biology when religion itself is subject to the explanations of the natural sciences...sociobiology can account for the very origin of mythology by the principle of natural selection acting on the genetically evolving material structure of the human brain. If this interpretation is correct, the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competitor, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline. But religion itself will endure for a long time as a vital force in society. Like the mythical giant Anteus who drew from his mother, the earth, religion cannot be defeated by those who may cast it down. The spiritual weakness of scientific naturalism is due to the fact that it has no such primal source of power.. So the time has come to ask: does a way exist to divert the power of religion into the service of the great enterprise?

[ant]

Yeah, these are suspicious times we live in.

[Robert Tulip]

I'm always a little suspicious when I see quotes taken out of context. Anyway, this particular quote (about how religion will endure) is taken from E.O. Wilson's Pulitzer prize-winning book, ON HUMAN NATURE. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much more than what has already been quoted, although it's interesting to see the preceding paragraph at least.

The statement that religion will endure is quoted a lot, but the preceding sentence (that theology is not likely to survive) is often left out. I'm still left wondering where E.O. Wilson is going with this. It seems part of a larger thought.

In any event, looks like a good book.

. . . we have come to the crucial stage in the history of biology when religion itself is subject to the explanations of the natural sciences...sociobiology can account for the very origin of mythology by the principle of natural selection acting on the genetically evolving material structure of the human brain. If this interpretation is correct, the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competitor, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline. But religion itself will endure for a long time as a vital force in society. Like the mythical giant Anteus who drew from his mother, the earth, religion cannot be defeated by those who may cast it down. The spiritual weakness of scientific naturalism is due to the fact that it has no such primal source of power.. So the time has come to ask: does a way exist to divert the power of religion into the service of the great enterprise?

EO Wilson is one of my favourite writers. I agree with his argument in favour of group selection, and see in this the intrusion of unconscious mythic themes into the scientific debate, in his clash with the individualist philosophy of Richard Dawkins.

The opening post mentions the myth of Antaeus, a giant in the desert who would challenge all passers-by to wrestling matches, kill them, and collect their skulls, so that he might one day build out of them a temple to his father Poseidon, God of the Ocean. He was indefatigably strong as long as he remained in contact with the ground (Gaia his mother earth), but once lifted into the air he became as weak as other men. Antaeus had defeated most of his opponents until it came to his fight with Heracles (who was on his way to the Garden of Hesperides for his 11th Labour). Upon finding that he could not beat Antaeus by throwing him to the ground as he would reheal due to his parentage (Gaia), Heracles discovered the secret of his power. Holding Antaeus aloft, Heracles crushed him in a bearhug. The story of Antaeus has been used as a symbol of the spiritual strength which accrues when one rests one's faith on the immediate fact of things. The struggle between Antaeus and Heracles is a favourite subject in ancient and Renaissance sculpture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antaeus

Wilson's idea here is that religion cannot be harmed through çasting it down, meaning in effect that demeaning religion by observing that everything is natural does no damage to real faith because this criticism does not engage with the human meaning found in religion. It is those who separate religion from the earth, ie the transcendental supernatural believers, who Wilson implies do most to damage religion, bringing it into contempt by peddling falsities. I agree with this argument.

I entirely disagree with Wilson's argument that theology is unlikely to survive. His own work on group selection illustrates the theological dimension that is essential to science. While theology will change, given that its object does not exist except as a psychological imaginative projection, my view is that philosophical theology is emerging as the framework for a scientific theory of everything, an understanding of how human life connects to the eternal, the infinite, the absolute and the real.

[youkrst]

people ultimately turn to institutional constructs for meaning and purpose.

that could be a large part of a problem right there.

I doubt Einstein, Beethoven, Dostoyevsky, or even Pee-Wee Herman will ever provide a worldview that gives meaning, purpose and value to life on their own.

all together now! Einstein, Beethoven, Dostoyevsky, AND even Pee-Wee Herman are just a start...

plenty more fish in the sea. let's add everyone else!

And part of my point was that science never has, and to this day does not capture the psyche of culture.

but it was never supposed to.

science like religion is an approach to content not the content itself.

bad science, bad religion, good science, good religion.

it all depends on the specific content of the science and religion and it's various implications and effects.





science + a whole lot of other things, why would science alone be expected to produce everything in a worldview?

you can't disconnect science from everything else can you?

the pipe dream that religion will one day be eclipsed by rational naturalism.

the pipe dream that cookery will one day be eclipsed by food chemistry, nah they work together.

religion AND natural rationalism, why not enjoy the best of both? and jettison the worst of both...

It never has been and never will be in the way some puritanical rationalists wish it were.

if you ever bump into some of these "puritanical rationalists" you can tell 'em all about it.

obviously i'm thinking of religion in it's broadest sense, even "no religion" is a "religion".

everyone has some kind of worldview. Ultimately i think you have to form your own, just like a kid has to grow up and stop depending on mum and dad for their opinions so people have to grow up and stop depending on institutions for their opinions if you catch my drift.

[youkrst]

the myth of Antaeus, a giant in the desert who would challenge all passers-by to wrestling matches, kill them, and collect their skulls, so that he might one day build out of them a temple to his father Poseidon, God of the Ocean. He was indefatigably strong as long as he remained in contact with the ground (Gaia his mother earth), but once lifted into the air he became as weak as other men. Antaeus had defeated most of his opponents until it came to his fight with Heracles (who was on his way to the Garden of Hesperides for his 11th Labour). Upon finding that he could not beat Antaeus by throwing him to the ground as he would reheal due to his parentage (Gaia), Heracles discovered the secret of his power. Holding Antaeus aloft, Heracles crushed him in a bearhug.

thanks Robert. i enjoyed that so much i gave myself a hug

[Interbane]

Wilson's idea here is that religion cannot be harmed through çasting it down, meaning in effect that demeaning religion by observing that everything is natural does no damage to real faith because this criticism does not engage with the human meaning found in religion. It is those who separate religion from the earth, ie the transcendental supernatural believers, who Wilson implies do most to damage religion, bringing it into contempt by peddling falsities. I agree with this argument.

The metaphor makes sense now.

[Interbane]

If the mechanism to promote naturalism to the majority is science, then the promoters of science and a so-called scientific "rational" worldview are dependent upon the psychological conditions of the aforementioned majority.
But the psych conditions of our society are not interested in science. It is not a popular institution. It never has been and never will be in the way some puritanical rationalists wish it were.

I personally found science classes in school to be inspiring. When teaching robotics at my place of work, the kids are even more eager and excited than if they were playing sports. The craze of legos that continues to sweep the nation is proof that STEM based initiative DO interest people.

The issues is that it taps into a different part of our brain. Whatever the carrot on a stick to learn and understand mechanisms and be creative, it is different from listening to a story and cheering for the protagonist. I do think there needs to be an overarching philosophy, in a format that can be digested by the simplest minds, yet going deep enough to be studied by philosophy doctorates. Something that guides the emotions rather than inspires the mind.

I think that in part, fiction novels, fiction TV shows, fiction movies, etc., all serve this purpose to a great extent. My children have learned more about proper behavior from cartoons than they have from the bible. They're constantly quoting their favorite characters in various settings, "it's never okay to be a bully," or "eat all your vegetables," or "if any would not work, neither should he eat."

In a way, the great variation in our morals and social norms seems to stem from pop fiction that has no central guiding philosophy. This variation is likely what has lead to rights movements, as the stories told in fiction settings can impact a massive number of people on sensitive issues.

But we do need a central guiding philosophy, something other than one of the religious bibles.