Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?

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.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 05:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:00

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

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 05:23

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)

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 05:28

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.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 05:36

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.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 05:43

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.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 05:50

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.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 05:56

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.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:01

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.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:05

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

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:08

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

I guess my basic point in linking the NOMA article is the following:

Young Earth Creationism commits a fatal philosophical error in claiming the Earth is 6000 years old, which we can demonstrate empirically is false.

Dawkins-style New Atheism commits a fatal philosophical error in claiming scientific evidence demonstrates God is an illusion and doesn't exist. That is not a thing science can do. The existence of God is not falsifiable.

both viewpoints violate the NOMA principle

claiming science can invalidate religion is as dumb as claiming the Earth is 6000 years old because the Bible says so

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:13

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

My primary point has been your language sucks, because I can't actually engage with an argument until it's phrased in non-sucky language. Given this, is the physical existence of a person named Jesus in a particular time and place a claim that Catholicism relies on and is that fact within the magisterium of the Catholic Church?

yes

I'm not Catholic

e: also, I don't mean to seem unduly harsh taking people to task on their wording or language. Keep in mind that Christianity exists within a two or three-thousand year old context and there are a lot of philosophical concepts which are simply assumed and take a bit of effort to translate.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:17

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

RasperFat posted:

I like how you take commonly accepted ideas, even among theologians, and paint them with a crazy brush.

Faith, a core tenant of many practices, requires a lack of evidence. The whole point of faith is believing when evidence points to not believing.

Religion absolutely does not offer any real explanations for the world. It's not contemptibly false, it's a statement of fact about how religions define the world. Religion offers comfort and mystical stories, not an actual explanation for how things work. People don't glean natural truths from holy texts, they learn them from observing the real world.

This is an extremely Protestant understanding. Most Christians do not actually think like this!

twodot posted:

So given that magisteriums don't overlap, science is totally incapable of showing a person named Jesus didn't exist in that time and place, regardless of what evidence science might produce?

okay I'm having a hard time unpacking this

science is NOT capable of showing Jesus did NOT exist

regardless of evidence

It's generally agreed by historians that there was an itinerant Jewish priest by the name of Jesus.

Are you asking in the sense, science can't disprove God? Because yeah, that's correct.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:24

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

None, this has nothing to do with the question asked. Science can't answer questions like "Is feeding people good?", but it can answer questions like "Is the sky blue?" even if all available evidence says "Yes".

EXACTLY

If you just believe in science, the correct solution to most of our current world problems is to genocide most of the population and take their poo poo. It has nothing to say on the ethics of the matter.

Science can, however, explain why they sky and oceans appear blue.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:25

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

Suppose someone invented a time machine and performed a census of that time and location, would you still think science couldn't show a person named Jesus didn't exist in that time and place?

Yes, if I went back in time and performed a census of everyone in the time and location of the Biblical Jesus, we would find an itinerant Jewish preacher named Jesus.

To get reductionist, you are venturing a prediction rather than a hypothesis. What is your underlying hypothesis?

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:29

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

Wait, you somehow know this to be absolutely certainly true? Like I agree it's likely, but I don't understand how you accrued such certainty over 2000 years of time.

No, I'm not absolutely certainly true.

Nor am I absolutely certain it's true the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that gravity accelerates everything downward. All the evidence points that way, but I'm not absolutely certain.

That is how science works.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:32

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

Yes, I agree. This is how science works. This should mean the physical existence of a person named Jesus in a particular time and place is within the magisterium of science and not that of the Catholic Church, right?

yeah sure

I think you don't really "get" the thesis of the article, maybe re-read it?

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:36

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

twodot posted:

So you are fine with overlapping magisteriums? You agreed the existence of Jesus is both the domain of science and the Catholic Church in this thread.

no, I do not, you haven't understood the reading, if I were to summarize:

religion and science can be divided into two "magisteria," or areas of authority
science deals with the physical world, things that are falsifiable or testable
religion deals with the ethical, moral, spiritual world that is not falsifiable or testable
these two magisteria need not be in conflict, but often are and that causes trouble for the interaction of religions with science

for example, young earth Christianity would make an empirically testable claim that the Earth is 6000 years old, which it is not
"New Atheism" would claim that scientific evidence disproves religious belief or the existence of God(s), but that is not something that science is able to do

there are conflicts between religion and science, absolutely, but there don't need to be and many internet atheists have a really poor understanding of philosophy of science

RasperFat posted:

You're playing a semantic game with faith. Religious faith is specifically defined as believing in the face of difficult evidence. Believing that your friend will pay you back that $20 is not the same as having faith that I am going to heaven.

Even so, if you believe the universe is moral, and all evidence points to it being random and chaotic, then yes you are operating on faith. It's an unsubstantiated claim, and assuming that is true is acting on faith.

I agree religion offers meaning people relate to their own lives, but it also makes empirical claims about the structure of the universe. These are almost universally wrong, mostly because they were written before we knew about atomic/subatomic particles and the astronomical scale of the size of the universe. The claims made by almost every religious sect are based on fundamentally wrong ideas about what humans are and our place in the universe, therefore the meaning that is filtered through religion will always be flawed.

I am also a feminist, and I think that religion plays a large role in reinforcing gender stereotypes. But I appreciate the assumption that I hate women and have no emotional intelligence.

speaking to nothing other than your views on religion, you are stereotyping religion extremely hardly as American Protestantism. most religious people do not think this way

e: just to double triple down, you are describing the very particularly American Evangelical strain of Christianity, and most religious people in the world have extremely different ideas about religion than you're arguing against

Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Mar 8, 2017

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 06:43

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

rudatron posted:

In what way does it sound jibberish? You've detailed how you feel about it, but you haven't explained why. I understand that's it's only a very short statement, and so explanation is necessary, but you're making an accusation that it's non-sensical. What, precisely, gives that impression, to you?

You sure like words

Let's rewind, how abouts? I asked you about inductive vs. deductive reasoning and you fumbled the ball.

Can we return to this?

rudatron posted:

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

What the gently caress are you talking about, minimal entropy?

Second law of thermodynamics, entropy in a system will tend to increase over time.

e: while we're at it could you define parsimony for me? So far you've failed these quizzes and your overall grade in the course isn't looking great.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 07:07

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

RasperFat posted:

we have already discovered extinct microbes on mars. We have evidence that stimulus such as lightning can cause the formation of lipid layers, like cells use, when striking nonorganic carbon materials. There's a myriad of other ways that organic materials can be created by natural phenomenon, giving us good cause to think life can form in the right conditions anywhere. The idea that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe is based on testable claims

this is mostly incorrect or misleading

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 07:28

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

RasperFat posted:

Actually, the religious families I grew up around were largely Catholic and Buddhists. I know most religious people are not literalists, and I wasn't implying that if that's what you were thinking.

Lack of gender equality is serious issue in religion worldwide. Not all of it is demanding women be servile, but it still reinforces gender roles in a big way.

I agree, in many parts of the world religion forces women into exploitative and subservient roles.

The topic of the thread is, "Is the left hostile to religion," and my point is no, it doesn't need to be. Science and religion needn't conflict, and leftism doesn't have to be atheistic. Many interpretations of Christianity have very socialist/leftist economics at the very least.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 07:46

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

team overhead smash posted:

Being unprovable is a defining feature of religion

science is also unprovable

it is falsifiable

there is a difference

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 09:09

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

RasperFat posted:

we have already discovered extinct microbes on mars.

we have not

RasperFat posted:

We have evidence that stimulus such as lightning can cause the formation of lipid layers, like cells use, when striking nonorganic carbon materials.

I'm sure you mean "stimuli." Lightning does not produce lipid layers. It may produce triacyglycerols. Cells other than archaea use phospholipid bilayers which are quite a different thing.
I'm sure by "nonorganic carbon materials" you mean carbon dioxide, CO2.

RasperFat posted:

There's a myriad of other ways that organic materials can be created by natural phenomenon

are a myriad
myriad suggests a wide variety of ways that organic materials may be created naturally, could you please list the myriad processes in addition to lightning?

RasperFat posted:

, giving us good cause to think life can form in the right conditions anywhere.

anywhere??

RasperFat posted:

The idea that there is probably life elsewhere in the universe is based on testable claims,

Testable how, where? I don't disagree, but how would I do this experiment or calculation?

RasperFat posted:

I'll admit abiogenesis is much more complex then that, and we don't have definite proof of ancient life on Mars. It was an oversimplification for someone who doesn't seem to understand the basics of science.

You should stop trying to use science as a bludgeon to attack religion when you can't seem to dislodge said club from your rectum.

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 09:22

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

rudatron posted:

Your characterization of induction vs. deduction doesn't line up with the majority usage of the term, so I don't know why you feel justified acting as patronizing as you are.

I also explained before, but it seems you missed it, so I'll repeat - entropy, in this context, is referring to the concept in information theory, not thermodynamics - essentially you're trying to minimize the 'error' term in a mathematical model and balancing that against the extra entropy you're adding by making more assumptions.

This is essentially a restatement of solmonoff's theory of induction, which is essentially bayesion reasoning wroth a universal prior, but a prior that is actually computable.

karl popper

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 09:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 13:00

Pellisworth: Jun 20, 2005

rudatron posted:

So to take physicalism for example: both physicalist and non-physicalist theories give the same posterior, but your physicalist theories will have a lower prior, so their confidence values are always going to be higher. That's what I mean when I say it 'falls out' of your axiom.

are you a markov chain generator

e: too snarky, removed

Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Mar 8, 2017

# ¿ Mar 8, 2017 09:31

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Is the Left Hostile to Religion?