Change?

[TinCow]

thats actually not a valid point... because 1900 is like the high days of science...

Yeah, I know. I tried to find stats for pre-industrial times but they were very non-scientific. Decided to go with a hard stat rather than an estimate.

[Andres]

i doubt they choose the most trustworthy one, they choose the one that is the most appealing, spectacular. or else they dont choose at all and just stick with what they have been taught. most of these people that believe in the laws of physics nowadays would have believed in the laws of god 500 years ago.

I agree that the ancestors of those who are nowadays posting "", "" and "" in response to a religious fellow and making comments like "so much stupidity!", "how you can you not see how you're wrong" were probably shaking their heads in disbelief because of the stupidity of the guy who thought there were many gods, that lightning bolts were thrown by some bearded fellow and the waves on the sea made by another bearded fellow while every sane being knew of course that there was only one bearded fellow and you had to worship him while properly dressed, not while dancing naked.

I also agree that both said ancestors and said present day people posting smileys and condescending comments don't really know/knew what it is they were/are talking about, since the vast majority of both groups read it in some book or heard it from some other guy, without ever checking things for themselves.

Yeah, many things change, but some things will always stay the same. "I don't really know what I'm talking about but I'm right and you're wrong because I'm taking the position of what is the consensus nowadays! You're teh stupid!" is from all times.

That doesn't mean scientific findings didn't bring us much good, though. Just compare our living standard to the living standard during the time people believing in one God were making fun of people believing in many gods.

And as has been said much better before: science and religion shouldn't compete, they play in different leagues.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Good post Reenk. Thanks for swinging by the BR, wanax.

[The Stranger]

I think you overestimate the influence of science. Thankfully, science's position in free society is still far from absolute, and is certainly nowhere near the influence of religion in the past. I'd venture to say worldwide, religion still trumps science in terms of influence, (if I can indulge in using the blanket terms religion and science like that for convenience). Thank god for that.

agreed but that doesnt mean that the comparison doenst hold. and i was talking solely about europe (or the western countries).

The implosion of the idea of logical positivism before it made any kind of permeation into widespread thought as well as Kuhn's attack against the linear view of scientific progress (despite the excesses of postmodernism that also resulted ) pretty much assure that the menace of 'science' never grabs influence it doesn't deserve.

i dont really get this :P (not saying it isnt relevant)

[/QUOTE]Great point, you've made it once it before if I recall. I do think there is a bit of overlap which does conflict in some cases, but it's minor as they primary focus of both is quite different. And for one who holds an instrumentalist (or any anti-realist conception) of scientific entities, with no ontological commitment to naturalism (heck, one can even get away without a methodological approach to inquiry), the best of both worlds is available in pure harmony. [/QUOTE]

it is possible to combine practical religion and science with each other or its systematic counterpart, but it isnt possible to combine the scientific metasystem with the religious metasystem. and the scientific system is dominating right now. when we are looking for justification nowadays we no longer look at god but we look at numbers, experiments and polls. a ruler is no longer justified because he rules in the name of god. though it is true that you can't really say that he rules in the name of science nowadays, the scientific revolution did have a large impact on our worldy beliefs and how we eventually developed and devised the current system.

I don't really understand the point of trying to equate science and religion like this?

I mean of course there are other aspects to both science (process, research programs) and religion (ritual) which are huge parts, but they aren't really relevant at all, just as you yourself say the results aren't. What (at least I thought) you were trying to compare was religious and scientific worldviews...

you are right, i didnt express myself rightly there... i cant remember what point i was trying to make... so you can just ignore that post.

There are ethics followed in science and results from science do influence morality, but science doesn't have morals in the way that religion does...

true. atleast they claim to be without morals, and the practise in itself is.

[Mete Han]

The only thing that doesn't change is the few rule the many,
The poor, uneducated masses and their problems are ignored,
and they cannot help themsleves because they are made to believe in something and they are kept entertained
and as long as their basic needs are satisfied they are happy to live with life leftovers.

human psychology makes the regular man imagine the world through comparing himself with his neighbors
and as long as he has at least as his neighbor has it means everything is just fine.
most of the people will never question any belief as long as their hormones are making them feel good enough.

and i think this is a big problem

because as human beings we can do better than other animals we share the world with
or maybe we haven't evolved out the animal.

[The Stranger]

i hope we never will. imagine how life would be if everyone would question authority, if everyone would be a rational individual that would be sceptic about everything someone else would say. a great project like that pyramids would never be accomplished. same for many other things.

the problem i have is that too few people are questioning now, and they are not questioning everything, some things are left unchallenged.

[Viking]

a great project like that pyramids would never be accomplished. same for many other things.

I allow myself to question the loss of value ; I will not let it go unchallenged.

[HoreTore]

i hope we never will. imagine how life would be if everyone would question authority, if everyone would be a rational individual that would be sceptic about everything someone else would say. a great project like that pyramids would never be accomplished. same for many other things.

the problem i have is that too few people are questioning now, and they are not questioning everything, some things are left unchallenged.

Bah, that makes no sense.

The pyramids could very well be completed if everyone questioned authority, IF everyone agreed that building them was a good thing and not an unneccessary waste of human life and resources.

The more authority has disappeared, the more freedom people are given and the more every individual is allowed to think for himself, the more progress humanity has progressed. Never before has authority been so absent, never before has every individual human been more rational. And never before have we seen progress like we see today.

[Kralizec]

I often sympathise with YEC's, because 99% of the people who mock their ideas probably know nothing about either the big bang or the Bible, they just believe it because the scientiests do.

There's nothing wrong per se with assuming that people who are supposed to know their stuff are in the right.

My own brother is a ...er, 9/11 revisionist if you will. He berates people who believe in the mainstream story of 9/11, because they're just believing what the American government and the media tells them.
If you've ever met one of these people, you'll notice that they (probably) "know" a lot more about 9/11 than you. If you're discussing 9/11 with one of them, you'll find that often you can't answer them directly on some points simply because you don't know about them, and can't be bothered to spare the time to learn about them.
Instead, for example, we assume that the vast majority of professional architects would surely have protested if the official explanation for the WTC collapses as inplausible.

Actually now that I think of it, more often than not when large numbers of people reject the consensus of the "learned elite" there are quite a few conspiracy nuts in them. With the vaccination campaign against influenza in the Netherlands for example one of the foremost detractors was convinced that the vaccines contained nano-chips from the government.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The more authority has disappeared, the more freedom people are given and the more every individual is allowed to think for himself, the more progress humanity has progressed. Never before has authority been so absent, never before has every individual human been more rational. And never before have we seen progress like we see today.

I don't think you can apply such ideas to every point in human history and expect them to work. The comfortable life we enjoy in today's civilised society is a result of thousands of years of the development of increasingly centralised and powerful systems of government, increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals with each stage (from tribal chiefs, to nobles, to feudal monarchs, to national absolutist monarchs etc). After all, progress has often been faster during wars.

[Kralizec]

Science isnt changing at all. It actually hasn't changed since its method has first been introduced. Yes they way we practice science has advanced, we have gotton answers for many questions and invented many things, but they way scientists work now hasnt changed a bit from the way the scientists worked in the modern times. it is still the step by step revealing of the darkness untill we reach close enough to that objective truth that we can say something about it and make it into a law.

and yes it is true that that law can be questioned, and yes it is true that the scientist can be questioned, but science itself? It cannot be questioned without being accused of not being scientific.


I dont know but i dont see the majority of the people asking questions about science, it concludes laws that are supposed to be infinite from a certain number of observations. Science is for Scientists i hear them say... sounds a lot like Church is for the Priests.




that is such an ignorant and narrow perception of religion. that is just what the people of the Enlightenment made it out to be. Sure it has bogged down into a rigid set of dogmas in the religions of the book but it has not always been like that and neither are those the only religions in the world. Besides that, if there is anything dogmatic it is science. Classic Religion also tried to improve itself, it tried to find new ways to come closer to god, to prove and understand stuff that we dont associate with anymore.

Scientific "dogma's" aren't holy in the way they are in religion. You might be ridiculed (i.e. not stoned to death) if you question science as such, but not if you question the premises behind accepted theories.
Science more or less means discovering facts and making up theories based on what we know and can observe, and by that process hoping to know the "truth". Young Earth Creationists are not ridiculed because they question the generally accepted age of the universe and the world, but for the reasons that they do. Still, I don't think it would be accurate to say that they "reject" science because I assume most of them happily follow scientific advice on nutrition and health issues, and so on.

Actually I think that most people who reject the theory evolution for example (since that's the most popular topic in science vs. religion discussions) would argue that the theory of evolution is bad science. Ot that the theory of intelligent design is at least as valid from a scientific perspective. There are plenty of people who question the way science currently works or the results that it produces, but not science as such.

Science is more than that, it has become a way of life, with its own morals and customs.

?
I understand what you're saying here...just not how you could say this

[The Stranger]

Bah, that makes no sense.

The more authority has disappeared, the more freedom people are given and the more every individual is allowed to think for himself, the more progress humanity has progressed. Never before has authority been so absent, never before has every individual human been more rational. And never before have we seen progress like we see today.

thats only true if people are free rational agents, which is still under question... (hehe low i know.)

Never before has authority been so absent, never before has every individual human been more rational. And never before have we seen progress like we see today.

and i actually doubt that very much. never since the dawn of modern times has humanity performed and suffered so many sickening deeds. mysticism is flourishing more and more than the few centuries before. and i think even though it is true that centralised authority is pretty much absent, humans are very far from being free. they are controlled a lot, they just dont realise it. and what's worse, no one knows who or what is in charge.

The pyramids could very well be completed if everyone questioned authority, IF everyone agreed that building them was a good thing and not an unneccessary waste of human life and resources.

what is the realistic chance of that happening? cmon...

[The Stranger]

Scientific "dogma's" aren't holy in the way they are in religion. You might be ridiculed (i.e. not stoned to death) if you question science as such, but not if you question the premises behind accepted theories.

as if every religion will kill you if you do not agree.

Science more or less means discovering facts and making up theories based on what we know and can observe, and by that process hoping to know the "truth". Young Earth Creationists are not ridiculed because they question the generally accepted age of the universe and the world, but for the reasons that they do. Still, I don't think it would be accurate to say that they "reject" science because I assume most of them happily follow scientific advice on nutrition and health issues, and so on.

the point is, we do not know when we "know" something. science has shown that. We only "know" what we don't know, and then still only from a certain point of view. so what if the foundations of science are fundamentally wrong. we can't know. scientists claim causality, a christian claims the hand of god, neither can prove either exists or does not exist. they can only prove, the existance of their own startingpoint (i.e. causality or god) by already taking those things into account when formulating the evidence that is supposed to support it.

Actually I think that most people who reject the theory evolution for example (since that's the most popular topic in science vs. religion discussions) would argue that the theory of evolution is bad science. Ot that the theory of intelligent design is at least as valid from a scientific perspective. There are plenty of people who question the way science currently works or the results that it produces, but not science as such.

sounds like you are backing my point there, not sure if it was intended... is it an ambush? :P

?
I understand what you're saying here...just not how you could say this

why couldnt i say it? i place no value upon that remark. i dont claim it to be bad or good or whatever. my formulation might have been a bit unlucky, but you say you know what i mean.

[HoreTore]

I don't think you can apply such ideas to every point in human history and expect them to work. The comfortable life we enjoy in today's civilised society is a result of thousands of years of the development of increasingly centralised and powerful systems of government, increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals with each stage (from tribal chiefs, to nobles, to feudal monarchs, to national absolutist monarchs etc). After all, progress has often been faster during wars.

We've become more and more centralized, you say? Meet the Spartans of ancient greece and the Italian city-states of the middle ages. While countries like France may have gone from decentralization to centralized authority, others have gone the other way.

[QUOTE=The Stranger;2437452]thats only true if people are free rational agents, which is still under question... (hehe low i know.)

No, rationality is not a requirement.

and i actually doubt that very much. never since the dawn of modern times has humanity performed and suffered so many sickening deeds. mysticism is flourishing more and more than the few centuries before. and i think even though it is true that centralised authority is pretty much absent, humans are very far from being free. they are controlled a lot, they just dont realise it. and what's worse, no one knows who or what is in charge.

We've committed the worst deeds this century? Nonsense. Hitler is the worst scumbag of modern times. Genghis Khan still killed plenty more than he did. You think the Gestapo were cruel? Meet the execution methods one millennia ago, like the "spread eagle" of the vikings, where a living human is cut up in the middle of his chest, before both sides of the ribcage is broken to each side, thus resebmling an eagle spreading its wings. You think we're controlled now? Read up on Sparta, no dictatorship since has even come close to the degree of control from cradle to the grave that the spartans achieved.

what is the realistic chance of that happening? cmon...

Zero, because building the Pyramids is a complete waste of time and human life. A greater project we actually need, the internet, was built in a few years, however.

[Rhyfelwyr]

We've become more and more centralized, you say? Meet the Spartans of ancient greece and the Italian city-states of the middle ages. While countries like France may have gone from decentralization to centralized authority, others have gone the other way.

Exceptions don't prove the rule when compared against the greater part of the development of human society. In any case, Greece or Italy today are much more centralised than they ever were in the past, considering the large degree of autonomy these city states tended to have.

[HoreTore]

Exceptions don't prove the rule when compared against the greater part of the development of human society. In any case, Greece or Italy today are much more centralised than they ever were in the past, considering the large degree of autonomy these city states tended to have.

Ancient Sparta was EXTREMELY centralized compared to current day Greece, and the Roman Empire of the 1st century was much more centralized than the city-states of the 15th century was.

[The Stranger]

[QUOTE]

thats only true if people are free rational agents, which is still under question... (hehe low i know.)

No, rationality is not a requirement.

oke a free agent... which in this debate will come down to almost equal.

We've committed the worst deeds this century? Nonsense. Hitler is the worst scumbag of modern times. Genghis Khan still killed plenty more than he did. You think the Gestapo were cruel? Meet the execution methods one millennia ago, like the "spread eagle" of the vikings, where a living human is cut up in the middle of his chest, before both sides of the ribcage is broken to each side, thus resebmling an eagle spreading its wings. You think we're controlled now? Read up on Sparta, no dictatorship since has even come close to the degree of control from cradle to the grave that the spartans achieved.

i meant the 20th century. not the 21st. ofcourse there were places that had worse methods, more blunt and maybe even more painful. but nowhere ever have we seen such ruthless ideologistic orientated mass murdering, solely based on an atribute a person can't control, his (ancestral) history. Genghis may have killed more, but he wouldnt kill a man for being just chinese, and do the same to every other chinese. And yes, sparta may have been very controlled. but most people in the west (or on the globe) during that time were not under a form of centralised (or even decentralised) government that could enforce their laws everywhere and instantly. which seems to be the case now in (atleast in the west).

Zero, because building the Pyramids is a complete waste of time and human life. A greater project we actually need, the internet, was built in a few years, however.

yes it was. but again i doubt it would have been achieved if everyone would question its need for production, way of production, price of production, place of production, spread of use, rights of production etc etc etc.

[The Stranger]

Ancient Sparta was EXTREMELY centralized compared to current day Greece, and the Roman Empire of the 1st century was much more centralized than the city-states of the 15th century was.

its easy to centralise a city with just a few ten thousand inhabitants. i would like to see them exert the same level of control over millions.

but anyhow we're now going a bit offtopic.

[HoreTore]

yes it was. but again i doubt it would have been achieved if everyone would question its need for production, way of production, price of production, place of production, spread of use, rights of production etc etc etc.

Everyone has constantly questioned teh interwebs, from religious fundies who believe it to be satan himself to conspiracy nuts who believe it's another way for ze governmentz to extend their mind-control over us all.