Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
The fundamental assumption of religion is the 'leap of faith', i.e. the adoption of a non-parsimonious assumption in your knowledge base, because of 'divine revelation'. The fundamental assumption of science is universal skepticism and the application of parsimony to all beliefs (to state it more rigorously - minimize the total entropy of all beliefs). They're not equivalent, but you have to go beyond theories/knowledge into the process of deriving beliefs/knowledge to tell the difference. But it exists, and so for the purposes of this discussion, you can proceed from that assumption.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Shbobdb
Dec 16, 2010

by Reene
The "leap of faith" aspect seems to normalize a very Protestant view of religion.

Tradition is a much bigger driving force behind religion. "Doing things the way they've always been done because that's how they've always been done" is reactionary as gently caress and why religion and leftism rarely get along.

twerking on the railroad
Jun 23, 2007

Get on my level
I think that reading this thread has made me feel it's more likely that the left is hostile to religion.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

rudatron posted:

The fundamental assumption of religion is the 'leap of faith', i.e. the adoption of a non-parsimonious assumption in your knowledge base, because of 'divine revelation'. The fundamental assumption of science is universal skepticism and the application of parsimony to all beliefs (to state it more rigorously - minimize the total entropy of all beliefs). They're not equivalent, but you have to go beyond theories/knowledge into the process of deriving beliefs/knowledge to tell the difference. But it exists, and so for the purposes of this discussion, you can proceed from that assumption.

Science is not universally skeptical or else it could not proceed. All knowledge ultimately must proceed on certain fundamental axioms, and the basic process of science as it is actually done relies on further, non-fundamental axioms which are nevertheless necessary to avoid producing a mindless glut of pointless data with every experiment or field observation. This definition is once again useless.

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

rudatron posted:

The fundamental assumption of religion is the 'leap of faith', i.e. the adoption of a non-parsimonious assumption in your knowledge base, because of 'divine revelation'. The fundamental assumption of science is universal skepticism and the application of parsimony to all beliefs (to state it more rigorously - minimize the total entropy of all beliefs). They're not equivalent, but you have to go beyond theories/knowledge into the process of deriving beliefs/knowledge to tell the difference. But it exists, and so for the purposes of this discussion, you can proceed from that assumption.

I would invite you and any other thread posters to read and consider the following before continuing (a famous essay by evolutionary biologist S. J. Gould): http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Science and religion do not necessarily overlap or conflict. Science occupies the domain of empirical observations and testing, religion generally occupies the domain of moral, ethical, and philosophical reasoning.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
These kind of threads are interesting, but repetitive, because they tend to attract the same kind of people with the same kind of 'chip on their shoulders' - religious apologists who feel they have to defend themselves from what they feel are unfair accusations (contextually important in the first world because of declining church membership/attendance), and atheists who want to make their objections about religiously dominated politics known.

The problem with that is that threads on religion end up turning into the same kind of things over and over again, as those same insecurities get expressed in each time.

In this case, religious apologists who are left-of-center want to be able to reconcile their religiosity with their politics, and so naturally latch onto any relationship, however tenuous, between progressive ideology and religions-as-a-whole, i.e. liberation theology or whatever.

Ultimately though,, all religions function as arbitrary communities with an inherited culture, and that culture gets determined by people in positions of authority, and the authority structure of religions tend to lean towards highly hierarchical, because that's what all communities where like when these religions started. Ergo, they tend to excuse hierarchy, and tend to integrate well into societies with large disparities between classes/groups/whatever.

Being arbitrary tribes, they also enculture tribalism, and all the other prejudices that follow from that (heretics & heathens).

So, strictly speaking, you can believe almost any metaphysical structure you want, and have whatever politics you want, there's no real restrictions there. But practically speaking, religious communities will tend to lean right-of-center, support right wing politics, act as a recruiting base for right-wing paramilitaries, etc etc, and there's no real way that's changing in the near future, short of the total abolition of religion.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless
Religions are hierarchical? I guess all religions are just a branch of Catholicism then.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy

Brainiac Five posted:

Science is not universally skeptical or else it could not proceed. All knowledge ultimately must proceed on certain fundamental axioms, and the basic process of science as it is actually done relies on further, non-fundamental axioms which are nevertheless necessary to avoid producing a mindless glut of pointless data with every experiment or field observation. This definition is once again useless.
Correct, but the only fundamental axiom would be parsimony. All theories have a given mathematical complexity, you justify that complexity against the explanatory power of the theory vs. data. Even something like physicalism/materialism actually ends up falling out of that assumption of parsimony - the assumption of an unseen universe is an assumption with an incredible amount of complexity that, more often than not, offers no explanatory power.

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

rudatron posted:

These kind of threads are interesting, but repetitive, because they tend to attract the same kind of people with the same kind of 'chip on their shoulders' - religious apologists who feel they have to defend themselves from what they feel are unfair accusations (contextually important in the first world because of declining church membership/attendance), and atheists who want to make their objections about religiously dominated politics known.

The problem with that is that threads on religion end up turning into the same kind of things over and over again, as those same insecurities get expressed in each time.

In this case, religious apologists who are left-of-center want to be able to reconcile their religiosity with their politics, and so naturally latch onto any relationship, however tenuous, between progressive ideology and religions-as-a-whole, i.e. liberation theology or whatever.

Ultimately though,, all religions function as arbitrary communities with an inherited culture, and that culture gets determined by people in positions of authority, and the authority structure of religions tend to lean towards highly hierarchical, because that's what all communities where like when these religions started. Ergo, they tend to excuse hierarchy, and tend to integrate well into societies with large disparities between classes/groups/whatever.

Being arbitrary tribes, they also enculture tribalism, and all the other prejudices that follow from that (heretics & heathens).

So, strictly speaking, you can believe almost any metaphysical structure you want, and have whatever politics you want, there's no real restrictions there. But practically speaking, religious communities will tend to lean right-of-center, support right wing politics, act as a recruiting base for right-wing paramilitaries, etc etc, and there's no real way that's changing in the near future, short of the total abolition of religion.

you've used a lot of words to define your ignorance, do you have any specific questions about religion and leftist politics?

specifically, Christianity, because that's all I'm able to talk about

If you check out the A/T Christianity thread you will find it is absolutely one of the most progressive and tolerant Christian groups on the internet, we have pagan and atheist posters regularly contributing because it is a relaxed and chill place to exchange ideas

rudatron posted:

Correct, but the only fundamental axiom would be parsimony. All theories have a given mathematical complexity, you justify that complexity against the explanatory power of the theory vs. data. Even something like physicalism/materialism actually ends up falling out of that assumption of parsimony - the assumption of an unseen universe is an assumption with an incredible amount of complexity that, more often than not, offers no explanatory power.
are you forums poster Jastiger
holy lol

goddamn you use a lot of big words to communicate nothing at all, it's impressive

Shbobdb
Dec 16, 2010

by Reene
But have you ever considered that maybe your car is actually run by goblins? Maybe the engine doesn't do anything at all but we just think it does because we have blind faith in physics and engineering.

Even if we know engines and cars work, do you check your car everyday while it is running? Because if you don't, my "goblin hypothesis" is every bit as reasonable as your "engine hypothesis".

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

rudatron posted:

Correct, but the only fundamental axiom would be parsimony. All theories have a given mathematical complexity, you justify that complexity against the explanatory power of the theory vs. data. Even something like physicalism/materialism actually ends up falling out of that assumption of parsimony - the assumption of an unseen universe is an assumption with an incredible amount of complexity that, more often than not, offers no explanatory power.

Wrong. You are relying at least on the axioms that you are capable of acquiring accurate data and interpreting that data correctly, and that that data is meaningful. You need to be able to trust the information you have in order to be parsimonious about it. I appreciate that you tried to bulldoze over the problem of induction without the slightest acknowledgement that it might exist, but unfortunately you're not competent to do so.

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

Brainiac Five posted:

Wrong. You are relying at least on the axioms that you are capable of acquiring accurate data and interpreting that data correctly, and that that data is meaningful. You need to be able to trust the information you have in order to be parsimonious about it. I appreciate that you tried to bulldoze over the problem of induction without the slightest acknowledgement that it might exist, but unfortunately you're not competent to do so.

please don't ask the thread to explain inductive vs. deductive reasoning

most graduate students can't do that :smith:



(a good post)

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Pellisworth posted:

I would invite you and any other thread posters to read and consider the following before continuing (a famous essay by evolutionary biologist S. J. Gould): http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Science and religion do not necessarily overlap or conflict. Science occupies the domain of empirical observations and testing, religion generally occupies the domain of moral, ethical, and philosophical reasoning.
The claim that religion and science don't conflict because Good Religions don't bother to make claims science can test, and we can just ignore Bad Religions that do make claims science has disprove because they're bad doesn't make any sense to me. That there exists religions that claim evolution didn't happen is just true. These religions are necessarily in conflict with science.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
Induction also falls out of parsimony/assumption of minimal entropy.
Do you have something that you want to say? Don't misunderstand me, I'm not challenging your's or other believer's 'progressive bondafides' on the account of your religious belief, I'm trying to talk about religious communities in general and the forces that act on them. I'm sure you're a very tolerant/nice person, but I'm not really talking about you specifically. Does that make sense?

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

The claim that religion and science don't conflict because Good Religions don't bother to make claims science can test, and we can just ignore Bad Religions that do make claims science has disprove because they're bad doesn't make any sense to me. That there exists religions that claim evolution didn't happen is just true. These religions are necessarily in conflict with science.

Certainly, there are religious sects that violate Gould's NOMA principle. My point is that many/most denominations do not, it's only when religions attempt to make empirical claims or that empiricism attempts to make moral/ethical claims that they get in trouble.

Young Earth Creationists get in trouble because they make falsifiable claims about the history of Earth and evolution.
Similarly, "New Atheists" in the Dawkins mold get in trouble because they use science to make claims on religion and morality which lie outside the scope of scientific inquiry.


rudatron posted:

Induction also falls out of parsimony/assumption of minimal entropy.

Please define inductive reasoning for me. This statement is gibberish.

e: also, entropy INCREASES thermodynamically. What are you talking about.

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
I'm not using an obscure definition of induction, I mean the standard, philosophical idea of induction. Why does it sound like gibberish to you?

edit: ah, just to be clear: 'entropy' here refers to the concept in information theory, not thermodynamics, though the two are closely related.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Pellisworth posted:

Certainly, there are religious sects that violate Gould's NOMA principle. My point is that many/most denominations do not, it's only when religions attempt to make empirical claims or that empiricism attempts to make moral/ethical claims that they get in trouble.
What religion are you thinking of where many denominations don't make empirical claims? I think almost all Christian denominations claim Jesus actually physically existed.

twodot fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Mar 8, 2017

Liquid Communism
Mar 9, 2004


Out here, everything hurts.




Brainiac Five posted:

Wrong. You are relying at least on the axioms that you are capable of acquiring accurate data and interpreting that data correctly, and that that data is meaningful. You need to be able to trust the information you have in order to be parsimonious about it. I appreciate that you tried to bulldoze over the problem of induction without the slightest acknowledgement that it might exist, but unfortunately you're not competent to do so.


I'll grant religious belief equal standing as an explanation for natural phenomena when it is falsifiable and testable. Otherwise, your 'but what if none of us are capable of accurate perception of anything at all, doesn't that mean <insert magic here> could be real?' argument is uselessly absurd.

Bar Ran Dun
Jan 22, 2006




rudatron posted:

The fundamental assumption of religion is the 'leap of faith', i.e. the adoption of a non-parsimonious assumption in your knowledge base, because of 'divine revelation'. The fundamental assumption of science is universal skepticism and the application of parsimony to all beliefs (to state it more rigorously - minimize the total entropy of all beliefs). They're not equivalent, but you have to go beyond theories/knowledge into the process of deriving beliefs/knowledge to tell the difference. But it exists, and so for the purposes of this discussion, you can proceed from that assumption.

Naomi Oreskes talks about this issue:

https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science/transcript?language=en

Leaps of Faith and consensus are very much part of science. And the false dichotomy continues to be harmful.

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

rudatron posted:

I'm not using an obscure definition of induction, I mean the standard, philosophical idea of induction. Why does it sound like gibberish to you?

Okay, what is the standard, philosophical definition?

I've taught and mentored many students in the sciences. It sounds like gibberish to me because you're using a lot of big words while not actually demonstrating you understand the concept. Most college and many graduate-level students in STEM don't really understand the difference.

So, I'll repeat, could you briefly distinguish for me between deductive and inductive reasoning? I'm happy to respond with my take, but I would appreciate you explaining in a few sentences.

If you want to make an argument from a rational scientific or philosophy of science perspective, I expect it to be robust.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

Liquid Communism posted:

I'll grant religious belief equal standing as an explanation for natural phenomena when it is falsifiable and testable. Otherwise, your 'but what if none of us are capable of accurate perception of anything at all, doesn't that mean <insert magic here> could be real?' argument is uselessly absurd.

That's not an argument for religion being true, motherfucker. I'm attacking rudatron's definition of what religion is. Can you avoid jumping to loving conclusions for one single thread about religion?

twodot posted:

What religion are you think of where many denominations don't make empirical claims? I think almost all Christian denominations claim Jesus actually physically existed.

Are you going to argue for non-historical Jesus in this thread?

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

twerking on the railroad posted:

I think that reading this thread has made me feel it's more likely that the left is hostile to religion.

It's convinced me that Sandernista's should make wearing a fedora without a proper suit should make you liable for expulsion from the movement.

TomViolence
Feb 19, 2013

PLEASE ASK ABOUT MY 80,000 WORD WALLACE AND GROMIT SLASH FICTION. PLEASE.

From reading this thread I've grown convinced the mediaeval church was entirely right and proper in persecuting atheists for so long.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Brainiac Five posted:

Are you going to argue for non-historical Jesus in this thread?
No. Are you going to argue "Jesus was definitely a historical figure" isn't an empirical claim?

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

twodot posted:

No. Are you going to argue "Jesus was definitely a historical figure" isn't an empirical claim?

If your argument against non-overlapping magisteria is a transparently tendentious argument that believing in the existence of historical figures of the religion is an empirical claim that violates the magisterium of the sciences, then you are just making the non-historical Jesus argument in sheep's clothing and there's not much point in further discussion, now is there?

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

No. Are you going to argue "Jesus was definitely a historical figure" isn't an empirical claim?

It is falsfiable, yes. Most historians agree Jesus was a historical dude.

Science is utterly incapable of saying whether he was actually the promised Messiah, died on the cross, rose again after three days, etc.

That is not a thing science can do.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Pellisworth posted:

It is falsfiable, yes. Most historians agree Jesus was a historical dude.

Science is utterly incapable of saying whether he was actually the promised Messiah, died on the cross, rose again after three days, etc.

That is not a thing science can do.
So you are agreeing that basically all of Christianity makes at least one empirical claim, that a person named Jesus existed in a particular time and place?

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
Like, I said, I'm not using any obscure definition of induction. You can refer to either the Wikipedia or Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's definition as the one I'm using. But briefly:
induction = reasoning in which data is given as evidence, but the truth value will always remain inconclusive
deduction = logic following from presumably true axioms

now that we have undergrad philosophy out of the way, perhaps you could clarify why my initial statement sounded like 'gibberish' to you? I'm happy to clarify, but I need to know what to clarify.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Mar 8, 2017

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

twodot posted:

So you are agreeing that basically all of Christianity makes at least one empirical claim, that a person named Jesus existed in a particular time and place?

Can you get to the point?

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

So you are agreeing that basically all of Christianity makes at least one empirical claim, that a person named Jesus existed in a particular time and place?

yeah sure
by all means feel free to disprove the historicity of Jesus


rudatron posted:

Like, I said, I'm not using any obscure definition of induction. You can refer to either the Wikipedia or Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's definition as the one I'm using. But briefly:
induction = reasoning in which data is given as evidence, but the truth value will always remain inconclusive (best formalized as the bayesian probability statement P(A|B))
deduction = logic following from presumably true axioms

now that we have undergrad philosophy out of the way, perhaps you could clarify why my initial statement sounded like 'gibberish' to you? I'm happy to clarify, but I need to know what I'm need to clarify.

your copy/pasting Wikipedia is cute

inductive reasoning is HYPOTHESIS GENERATING, you consider existing data and construct explanations for observed patterns
deductive reasoning is HYPOTHESIS TESTING, you consider competing hypotheses and evaluate their strength

I called it gibberish because I have a PhD and a decade of teaching college science courses under my belt and your posts sound like a freshman trying to bullshit a midterm paper they didn't do the reading for.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Brainiac Five posted:

Can you get to the point?
Pellisworth claims it's unusual for religions to make empirical claims, but this is trivially false. Don't butt into conversations you don't understand.

unlimited shrimp
Aug 30, 2008

Pellisworth posted:

I would invite you and any other thread posters to read and consider the following before continuing (a famous essay by evolutionary biologist S. J. Gould): http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Science and religion do not necessarily overlap or conflict. Science occupies the domain of empirical observations and testing, religion generally occupies the domain of moral, ethical, and philosophical reasoning.

Say what you want about Sam Harris, but he (among others) picks this apart pretty well. For Gould's argument to hold, "religion" would need to be qualitatively different than it is today.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

twodot posted:

Pellisworth claims it's unusual for religions to make empirical claims, but this is trivially false. Don't butt into conversations you don't understand.

Why does this disprove the central thesis of the argument for non-overlapping magisteria? You're assuming everyone has your deformed lawyer's brain and if you can offer trivia that contradicts a broad statement you have destroyed the statement, because you have a brain that is, so far as I can tell in reading hundreds of your posts in thread after thread, incapable of interpreting meanings beyond the denotative.

That is, any religion will make trivial empirical claims but those are generally irrelevant to the content of the religion. The claim that a particular Shinto shrine exists does not make Shinto's claims about the ideal emotional state for human beings empirical ones.

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

Pellisworth claims it's unusual for religions to make empirical claims, but this is trivially false. Don't butt into conversations you don't understand.

I did not say that, and on what basis do you blow off Brainiac Five as not understanding?

I suggest you reread Gould's NOMA article.

It is certainly true that many religious groups violate the NOMA principle.

SO DO MANY ATHEISTS

That's my overarching point-- many Christians, especially American Evangelical types, have very unscientific beliefs.

So do most atheists.

Science is incapable of reaching empirical conclusions about the domains religion mostly addresses: morality, ethics, mythology, spirituality, etc.

Crowsbeak
Oct 9, 2012

by Azathoth
Lipstick Apathy

twodot posted:

What religion are you thinking of where many denominations don't make empirical claims? I think almost all Christian denominations claim Jesus actually physically existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43mDuIN5-ww
Yeah Jesus Mysticism really makes you look like a bit of an idiot.

twodot
Aug 7, 2005

You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Pellisworth posted:

Certainly, there are religious sects that violate Gould's NOMA principle. My point is that many/most denominations do not

Pellisworth posted:

It is certainly true that many religious groups violate the NOMA principle.
Can you make up your mind?

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

the trump tutelage posted:

Say what you want about Sam Harris, but he (among others) picks this apart pretty well. For Gould's argument to hold, "religion" would need to be qualitatively different than it is today.

Could you link an article?

My initial reaction is that "religion" is extremely variable between denominations, regions, etc.

To paint religion by any broad stroke is very reductive.

I can only speak from personal experience, but most of mainstream, non-Evangelical Christianity is pretty cool with science.

Brainiac Five
Mar 28, 2016

by FactsAreUseless

twodot posted:

Can you make up your mind?

There's no contradiction between "many do" and "most do not".

CommieGIR
Aug 22, 2006

The blue glow is a feature, not a bug


Pillbug

Shbobdb posted:

I think a logistical positivist could go either way, honestly.

But have you stopped beating your wife?

What the hell?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Pellisworth
Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

Can you make up your mind?

Do you have a point you wanted to make other than dissecting my language?

Let me be more specific, American Evangelical / Right Wing groups tend to be much more anti-scientific and violate NOMA principles.

Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism (Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc) are much more inclined to agree or compromise with NOMA principles.

e: you needn't accept Gould's NOMA scheme, I just think it's a good starting point for consideration of a reconciliation between science and religion

  • Locked thread