Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 07:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is a philosopher with important things to say who lives only a few miles from me. His name is Daniel Dennett.

You gots access to Dennett? Do me a solid and go slap his ass and tell him "good game" for me!

No, really that's cool. I've always dug his stuff.Thumbsup

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 08:12 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Anthropology is a soft science and there is a cultural war going on
since before the WWII maybe earlier and the hatred towards hard science
is so strong that one can not really trust the soft science as I get it.

But suppose is a good word for atheist it is like the

There is probably no God
so ... the bus campaign.

so suppose anthropology do get it right.
what does that mean practically?

A huge difference to the atheists if they care about science.

Most likely they don't care because they are totally obsessed
with water tight philosophic definitions. Smile They just love such!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 08:18 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 08:12 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  ...
There is probably no God
...

I think we can definitely say there are no personal/interventionist-gods:

A personal god implies an interventionist god (answers prayers and the like).

If there was such a thing as an interventionist god (or gods), the results of no scientific experiment would be valid.

It would be:

Journalist: "Wow! That was an unexpected / predicted result. Congratulations."
Scientist: "Thanks, warm up a seat for me in Stockholm."
Journalist: "Hang on, how do you know that the gods didn't influence the result?"
Scientist: "Fuck it!"

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 08:30 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 08:12 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Anthropology is a soft science and there is a cultural war going on
since before the WWII maybe earlier and the hatred towards hard science
is so strong that one can not really trust the soft science as I get it.

Wait, what?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
"every religion is a cultural product created by the human community that practices it"
is not inherently contradictory to the concept that a god exists. Sure, it leaves plenty of room for doubt and if accepted blows away the idea that "my" religion is the correct one. It doesn't preclude the possibility of a god existing that all religions are in some way trying to reach.

You seem to be struggling with an idea that you aren't clearly expressing, something like "science says god can't exist" - which you then seem to disagree with and create some kind of conflict out of.

Let's keep it simple:
* Science cannot prove that no gods exist, only that specific properties of specific gods are false.. and only properties that are empirically verifiable.
* That said, science ever provides less and less space for a "god of the gaps" to exist within
* Atheism has nothing to do with that. Atheism is about whether you believe or do not believe. The only bad atheist is one who believes in a god.

What is there left to struggle with?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
11-08-2013, 08:40 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Hafnof I spent a whole year daily four hours a day and most of the days 8 hours
and and I will not go into that ordeal here too. I am sick and tired of not getting understood.

I have done my best to retell my story. if i fail then that is
because I don't have better command of my thoughts and words.

I am sorry I apology I am not bright enough to be consistent and clear.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 08:43 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2013 08:55 AM by Freethinker2.)
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Maybe someone less confused can explain my view.

Here is what a user say on a blog comment somewhere

Quote:
SAWells write about the term mythotheism like this:
...I’ve decided my atheism is mythotheism:
I think gods are fictional characters.
The only place they ever turn up is in people’s imagination.

Asking for convincing evidence of their existence
is the wrong question because it’s like asking for evidence of
the real existence of Eliza Bennett from Pride and Prejudice -
we’re talking about an entity which we know somebody made up.

Now I don't know SAWells at all. But "she" comes through
as way more consistent or less confused than what I am.
she and I may disagree on gender politics or other issues
but here we are in 100% agreement.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 08:55 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 08:43 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Maybe someone less confused can explain my view.

Here is what a user say on a blog comment somewhere

Quote:
SAWells write about the term mythotheism like this:
...I’ve decided my atheism is mythotheism:
I think gods are fictional characters.
The only place they ever turn up is in people’s imagination.

Asking for convincing evidence of their existence
is the wrong question because it’s like asking for evidence of
the real existence of Eliza Bennett from Pride and Prejudice -
we’re talking about an entity which we know somebody made up.

Every atheist pretty much say the same thing, I fail to see the problem with that.

Every atheist realized that gods exist as fictional characters in theist's minds. That means that gods don't exist as a solid thing outside their minds.

The problem is that theists insist that gods exist as something real, as an entity that actually exists. That's when atheists ask for evidence, but we know they can't provide that evidence because gods aren't real.

why do you struggle? there is no contradiction there

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
11-08-2013, 09:08 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
Nach In

thanks for confirming that I am not totally far of or way off in nomansland.

"The problem is that theists insist that gods exist as something real, as an entity that actually exists. That's when atheists ask for evidence, but we know they can't provide that evidence because gods aren't real.
end of quote

Yes I agree they do that .they even love to do it. it is part of their rhetoric.
Clifford Geertz explain that in his definition of religion.

According to Geertz, religion is "
(1) a system of symbols which acts to
(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by
(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966) end of quote

So that is part of how to make a religion working for the believers.
their modus operandi so to say. the political strategy and spin they give it.

Is it not very odd that atheists should care more about what the believers say
that want soft science say about religions. I trust the soft science more.
the science has studied very many different religions while the believers
not even know their own religion very well. Research confirm they to be
often very wrong about their own faith. Smile


to your next question. '

"why do you struggle? there is no contradiction there "
There is two contradictions if that is the right word.
the atheists that I talked to for one year daily told me
that what you confirm here is totally irrelevant to atheism

but that I can not self identify as a supporter of Anthropology of Religion
sure I can do that but it is still irrelevant because by definition
I am either an atheist or a theist.

Even if I name myself Mythotheist agreeing with SAWells
that makes me still an atheist in their eyes.

There is no escape it is like the Borg. Resistance is futile.
To me that is like a prison I can not survive such.

I am not an atheist I am a believer in Anthropology of religion views.
but they force me to be atheist against my own conscious will.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2013, 09:13 AM
RE: Anthropology of religion? Soft science is not hard enough?
(11-08-2013 09:08 AM)Freethinker2 Wrote:  Nach In

thanks for confirming that I am not totally far of or way off in nomansland.

"The problem is that theists insist that gods exist as something real, as an entity that actually exists. That's when atheists ask for evidence, but we know they can't provide that evidence because gods aren't real.
end of quote

Yes I agree they do that .they even love to do it. it is part of their rhetoric.
Clifford Geertz explain that in his definition of religion.

According to Geertz, religion is "
(1) a system of symbols which acts to
(2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by
(3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and
(4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that
(5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic" (Geertz 1966) end of quote

So that is part of how to make a religion working for the believers.
their modus operandi so to say. the political strategy and spin they give it.

Is it not very odd that atheists should care more about what the believers say
that want soft science say about religions. I trust the soft science more.
the science has studied very many different religions while the believers
not even know their own religion very well. Research confirm they to be
often very wrong about their own faith. Smile


to your next question. '

"why do you struggle? there is no contradiction there "
There is two contradictions if that is the right word.
the atheists that I talked to for one year daily told me
that what you confirm here is totally irrelevant to atheism

but that I can not self identify as a supporter of Anthropology of Religion
sure I can do that but it is still irrelevant because by definition
I am either an atheist or a theist.

Even if I name myself Mythotheist agreeing with SAWells
that makes me still an atheist in their eyes.

There is no escape it is like the Borg. Resistance is futile.
To me that is like a prison I can not survive such.

I am not an atheist I am a believer in Anthropology of religion views.
but they force me to be atheist against my own conscious will.

You are creating a problem where there is none.

If you don't believe that gods actually exist, then you are atheist. It's simply the definition of the word.

I also believe that societies contribute and support the belief in god(s), but that makes me no less atheist.

What is your problem with accepting the simple definition of a word?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: