Science Based Religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2011, 08:27 PM
RE: Science Based Religion
I'll think on it tonight. I agree that rethinking things is always a positive excercise, whether we find truth or not. So I'll rethink, and thanks for giving me something to rethink.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2011, 09:01 PM
RE: Science Based Religion
Hey, davidamusick.

That was a very thoughtful post. Thank you for that.

I think the easiest language to use is memeplex. That's all a religion really is. There are other memeplexes in other organisations as well. Simply put, you're talking about a theoretical memeplex that involved scientific notions INTERPRETED.

Interpreted is the key word. Occam's Razor makes scientific memeplexes impossible. It reduces science to a process and a body of information. But that information can be interpreted, as you have done. But once you interpret the information, you move beyond the Razor and into the interpreted world rather than the literal world.

The moment we move into the interpreted world, we can form memeplexes of any kind. This has already begun, but hey. It's when we form stories out of the information that we create formal memeplexes. And all memplexes have dogma. Not a bad thing, just is what it is.

Look at your average scientist. Not the most exciting people. Why? Because they broker in dry facts. There is nothing alive in their work. The scientists that are exciting (Tyson, Greene, Dawkins) are the ones that take those facts and say, "which means...." They're the ones that weave stories out of the facts. Stories that tell us who we are, where we came from, where we're going, what our place is in the universe and what our relationship with everyone and everything around us is. These scientists move beyond the Razor, interpret the facts and begin to create memeplexes.

The only thing of importance is representation. Just like in the gene pool, memes are represented. When memplexes have a high representation, they become widespread philosophies, ways of life, religions, corporate structures, Soviets, etc...

So call it a religion, call it a scientifically based belief structure, call it the Eggman, it's a memeplex. Human society can't function without them. Society is based on the interpreted world, not the factual one.

And for the record, mythology is of paramount importance in social life and mythology is not a synonymn for made up. It just means a people's story. The triumverate is Story, Myth and Narrative:

Quote:First definition: story. A story is a scenario interrelating man, the world and the gods…
(Quinn, Ishmael, p 41)

[The purpose of a story is to tell us] …how things came to be this way.
(Quinn, Ishmael, p 43)

[A master narrative is] …A work… that scoops up thousands of facts, fits them into a meaningful pattern, and then draws lessons about human conduct.
-Robert Fulford, “The Triumph of Narrative”, p. 30.

The story of jazz also taught me something about master narratives themselves: that they are often wrong in significant ways. The master narrative of jazz overgeneralized. It telescoped events in ways that distorted facts, and left out crucial elements, including whole cities where jazz developed. It undervalued certain musicians because they didn’t fit into what quickly became the accepted framework. The history of jazz demonstrated both the uses and the misuses of master narrative: it explained, to me at least, the need for structured understanding, but at the same time it vividly illustrated the unavoidable drawbacks in that kind of thinking.
-Robert Fulford, “The Triumph of Narrative”, p. 31.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
01-03-2011, 10:47 PM
 
RE: Science Based Religion
Quote:Before minds developed, there was no meaning to anything, but with the slow development of minds, the universe gradually became more aware of itself and meaning and priorities and purpose developed in those minds.

So, there is meaning in the universe, but it is in the parts of the universe that are our minds. We, and all our thoughts are things that the universe is doing. To the extent that we are intelligent or that we find life meaningful, so does the universe. That view may seem silly or trivial, but it is true.

I appreciate what you are saying, but don't necessarily agree with it from a scientific standpoint. I love thinking deep, thinking philosophy. Saying that the universe "becomes aware of itself" is bad science. It's great discussion of philosophy however. Discussing ideas of the mind and theories of what 'could be', and the function of the universe is all great but is not really touched by pure science.

Wikipedia Wrote:Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.
Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2011, 11:56 PM
RE: Science Based Religion
(01-03-2011 06:47 AM)davidamusick Wrote:  The real problem is that we currently have billions of people who believe firmly in religions because they provide them these stories that makes sense of the world.

I don't think this statement is very accurate. I think we have billions of people who have been brain-washed, many since early childhood, who can't escape from the brain-washing because of constant peer pressure ritualized pratices and fear of the unkown, which includes the fear of change.

We need something to fill certain needs in people, however it needs to be different enough from religion that it won't sink into the same lows as religion does.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2011, 09:40 AM
RE: Science Based Religion
Don't we already have one? Scientology? It's in the name!

Oh wait nvm: science, not science fiction!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2011, 02:02 PM
RE: Science Based Religion
Scientology has nothing to do with science. It was created by a science fiction writer named (J.L.) Hubbard (initials may be wrong). It is more like science fantasy than science fiction, and definitely not based on any real science.

When I find myself in times of trouble, Richard Dawkins comes to me, speaking words of reason, now I see, now I see.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2011, 03:15 PM
 
RE: Science Based Religion
davidamusick, I agree with most of your ideas about natural religion. Although I am an atheist in the literal sense, I believe that our brains and their imaginative products, including religions, are natural phenomena. To me, religion is a lot like theater (and often involves a lot of theatrics). Believers want to enjoy the drama and ignore the human processes that create it. Atheists point out that gods are only imaginary and religious beliefs are often destructive, although religious beliefs are also sometimes powerful motivators for good. I like looking at it from both sides, trying to understand all that is involved as we use our human imaginations, creating stories to try to understand the universe and ourselves. Ultimately for me the scientific method of finding meaning works best.
Quote this message in a reply
14-03-2011, 04:43 PM
RE: Science Based Religion
I agree with you in most parts David, because as an anthropologist I see the religions of many cultures. One of my favorites the Ainu of Japan believe in animism like many smaller groups and all of their stories are about the amazingness of living things and the spirits inhabiting them.

We could definitely use a newer religion which wipes the slate clean of old religion ideals, but we don't need a religion based on science. We just need a religion that is able to learn and grow. Science does not afford philosophy, because philosophy is not a definite answer. So a religion based on science would be a fallacy about seeking truth.

We could definitely do with a religion that uses fables on evolution, and describes things as in some way meaningful without demanding we do this rather than that. It would be very hard to make though and have a high likelihood of not working.

A problem with atheist sites is that atheists view religions as theistic often enough, even though theism is only one possible form. Religion is a very broad spectrum of things and in many cases not harmful at all but a way to explain away certain doubts and move on.

Perhaps we could have a religion of knowledge which states that things that are unknown are interesting not scary, and knowing them makes them no longer unknown. With stories discussing joy of the unknown and the things that are gained from not knowing everything. and also stating that it is our goal in life to know these things yet when we find the unknown answer we continue looking for more unknown things to prove. One that discusses a humanist approach to reason for existence rather than a universal one. Stating that we seek knowledge to further the joy and happiness of our species. we don't have to force the universe to be caring in order to give people a reason to live.

Having a story about the chronicler of our planet and our universe, and how this chronicler has had many faces and many names but always sought to explain and describe the things that he sees. And that all that he sees has meaning in the fact that others can see these chronicles and learn of these things from his observations.

I think that would be a good way to make it a bit more acceptable by the atheist standard. If rather than create a false explanation of the unknown, you make the unknown more exciting.

thanks for the topic David let's keep talking about it.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2011, 10:15 PM
RE: Science Based Religion
Just as an update, David if you are still around. I was inspired by you to start something, currently I haven't written it down yet due to time constraints. Hopefully within a few months I'll have a working formula of a religion to present here for debunking. Right now it's not built enough to withstand anything because it's just ideas in my head.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-07-2015, 04:08 PM
RE: Science Based Religion
I like your ideas about science based religion. Have you looked at the Church of Reality? It's a religion based on believing in everything that's real.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: