1. I just heard Ricard Dawkins on the "Late Late Show" in Ireland. A priest mentioned that Science is not the only way to know things. The tacit implication is that this makes believing in god without proof okay.
It makes sense that people would want to regard Science as a monolith in order to regard it as isolated and incomplete, and thus allowing for baseless belief in god.
It also makes sense to say that since all the bible or all the main doctrines of someone's Christianity have to be right in order of Christianity to be true, all claims of science have to be right or science is wrong.
What is interesting is that this discussion between Atheist Scientists and theists implies an odd spectrum of epistemology. From Religion to science?
This has nothing to do with actual existence as we experience it, nothing to do with our lives. The scientific method is a set of procedures for empirical discovery and verification.
Religion's special knowledge acquisition is done through faith, which is a feeling most often backed up by the threat of force, often directly.
But why have I not heard anyone mentioning the fact there are entire works dedicated to epistemology? Why is the question of how we know limited to Science versus faith? Am I the only one who is disgusted by the implications?
The reason that we have this incomplete, false dichotomy is because of the ignorance or inexperience of scientists and the petty stratagems of theists.
Experience and logical processes are what we all use to decide most questions. The scientific method is no more universal or fundamental to human experience than a recipe for hummus.
The main reason why we have questions like "Does science answer everything?" or "Is science the only way to know the universe?" is because religious types fear the implications of plain old logic. It is better to have something outside of their everyday experience and those of potential converts. It is better to argue against a presumed monolith than the everyday logic that causes to trust somethings and not others.
Our own experience might eventually lead us to a germ theory of disease, but never to the resurrection. It might tell us that people seem to be gone after death, but not that the people have souls inside them that fly out of them at death.
I want to write something more extensive on this subject, perhaps a review of epistemic theories and experiential perspectives of knowledge for atheists.
2. George Lakoff believes that political affiliation has more to do with our sense of familial affiliation than doctrinal procession. That is, when you see people who believe in gun control our also much more likely to be pro-choice, this is not because one belief suggests the other, or because both arise from a common principle, but because experience a sense of community and identify with a community of believers (this is my own interpretation of Lakoff.)
I have noticed for a long time that much communication among more orthodox believers, be they anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, liberals, or Limbaugh-types, has to do with in-group morality.
There is much less rational assessment of goals and consequences in general. Anarchists, despite their inspirational emphasis on consensus decision making, which entails a focus on mutually determined goals whether than enforcement of dogman, still can be seen denouncing others as not being real anarchists, being statists, being leftists, etc.
So it makes sense that once we come to identify with a certain perceived community of belief, we then project the doctrines, premises, and tendencies of that community onto the rest of our world.
Fear of losing authentic group identity can be seen, usually, in some sort of slippery slope arguments, such as, if you accept such and such premise, you are on your way to become a leftist. It is also seen in absurd definitional arguments, such as what constitutes a real anarchist, or real conservative. It is all too common to hear someone say. All those guys calling themselves X are not really X.
Whereas, ideologies (including the mythological embrace AKA Religion) generally have efficacious aims, such as the betterment of society, liberation, the end to capitalist oppression, it is hard not to stray to tribal business. Thus, we have factions, splits, heretics, and dogma.
Solutions to problems. Putting forth a common goal that transcends doctrinal differences is liberating. It frees us from the problem of loyalty to a community of ideas and puts back in the control seat. It also breaks down walls that keep us apart from other people.
As to personality. Given that our ideologies have much, perhaps mostly, to do with our sense of family, our neurological structures that correspond to our social reality, it is further likely that some people are more inclined to have stronger or weaker tendencies to adhere strictly to a particular community of belief.
This is what is called the True Believer phenomena.
It seems that some people are definitely more focused on the psychology of other people and some are less focused. This function may or may not intersect with a greater tendency to ideology. When it does, it then may coincide with a loyalty to ones immediate social ties, a rejection of those ties in favor of the ideology, or a rejection of the ideology in favor of ones social ties.
No comments:
Post a Comment