Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation, and Liberty. We have 5,000 SP + 15,000 SP from people following our curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord to chat with 350+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Join our reddit! and share your Steemit posts directly to The_IW.
What else? How else would one make religion democratic? Do you think that religion should be enforced by a despotic god or a priest?
Religion is a bad idea as far as I am concerned. All group think leads to the majority enslaving the minority. Thus, I am actually no fan of TRUE Democracy.
I don't have the right to enslave you. Myself and three people getting together do not have the right to enslave you. A city full of people deciding they want to enslave you does not grant them that right. A nation full of people does not give them the right to enslave you. A planet full of people does not give them the right to enslave you. It is evil and wrong no matter how many people vote to do it.
Science, on the other hand, is enforced by universities, people with money. Science, as opposed to religion, is driven by power.
That isn't science. It is just another religion and they have hijacked the label science and scientists to push an argument from authority fallacy to make most people ignore their enslavement.
Science still exists. It is simply the things we find with the scientific method which is only a tool, and scientists are those who stick to the scientific method. Nowhere in the scientific method does it mention degrees or universities. This is just how they have wrapped it up all nicely in the appeal to authority bow.
Bitcoin is driven by consensus. Do you think there is something wrong with that?
This is known as a false equivalency.
Sometimes presented as apples and oranges.
Though I will bite. Bitcoin is also voluntary and cannot be forced upon you. It is a currency. All currencies are tools.
Ideologies are not tools. You are comparing tools and ideologies and they are very different.
I misunderstood your intention, then. I think of religion as engineering. A group thinks of what connects them, then try to refine it. I think it fits your definition of scientific method.
Group thinking is what religion is trying to move away from, although it is not very successful at it. New Age was an attempt to promote education and individual thinking, yet it ended up in people trying to outdo each other at becoming more 'Christ conscious', or formless, or still, without really being able to express the purpose of such practice.
There has been some positive development in promoting compassion and vegetarianism thru Buddhism, or community and equality thru Sikhism (few people, if any, are equal to the Sikh gurus, though, yet there is much successful emphasis on community in this religion).
Still, at the moment I am not really able to point to any successful religion, or one I would personally recommend.
I am trying to replace writing new scriptures (which are fixed and static texts) with writing open source software that promotes particular activity. (Whether it is advertising your local events, or sharing resources), yet it has more to do with software engineering and scientific method, as you explained it, than with religion as I know it.
I think it fits your definition of scientific method.
Nope. Scientific method can only operate on things that are measurable. Repeatable, and can be repeated by others following the instructions. It does not do anything with that which it cannot measure. That is a distinct difference between it and religion. This also means there are many things in reality that you can't explain with science (YET) as you may not be able to observe them, repeat them, measure them, etc. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Science cannot prove what doesn't exist. It only operates with that which it can measure, observer, and repeat.
Religion works off of faith, and often off of certainty it is right. The key is faith. This is also sometimes called belief. Belief has nothing to do with science.
Now there are those that claim to be scientists, or use the label science to justify something they want to push onto others who actually are NOT practicing the scientific method. They are just stealing the label to lend what they say authority, and to try to stop people questioning what they are pushing. That is more the field of religion, and label or not those people are not practicing science.
The scientific method is quite simple. It is not more than the steps provided. They are quite simple. They don't need to expanded upon. In fact, if those steps are expanded upon it might introduce bias. That ultimately is one of the reasons the scientific method was created. To help us find answers regardless of our bias. If you follow the method that actually works. If you then reject the ability for people to challenge or ask questions then you turn it into bias and it is no longer scientific.
I do understand why you would think this though. Today there is a vast amount of "scientific", "scientifically", etc crap coming out every day that is not science at all. They just are stealing the label to push an appeal to authority fallacy, and stop people from questioning, to stop people from double checking themselves... after all it is scientific so I must take it as gospel right? Wrong.
True scientists never stop questioning even their own findings.
There has been some positive development in promoting compassion and vegetarianism thru Buddhism, or community and equality thru Sikhism (few people, if any, are equal to the Sikh gurus, though, yet there is much successful emphasis on community in this religion).
I never said there were not good things about religion. Yet for every good thing you show there are invariably even bad things that happen. I don't like group think as it leads to an us vs them situation. It is inevitable that strife will occur. I prefer to respect individuals, and individual rights.
You mention Buddhism, and Sikhism which on paper both seem pretty good. Yet they still promote group think. They have also lead to violence and strife. Often just between denominations. Or because they have conflict with some neighboring group of a different religion such as Taoism (which at its root is also peaceful). This does not stop human nature and the result of the us vs them. I think we can learn from religions. I just don't think identifying as one of them and becoming part of a group is ideal. Instead I see learning what many religions, and many ideologies say and taking the parts that mean something to you and being an individual is the key to avoiding the us vs them mentality.
Ultimately racism, and all forms of bigotry I am aware of stem from that us vs them mentality aka group think.
I am trying to replace writing new scriptures (which are fixed and static texts) with writing open source software that promotes particular activity. (Whether it is advertising your local events, or sharing resources), yet it has more to do with software engineering and scientific method, as you explained it, than with religion as I know it.
I don't have a problem with religion in this respect. The problem I have is the group think. People are free to speculate on that which we cannot explain other ways. The problem is that people often will then push their speculation as fact. In the scientific method this would be observing something, coming up with a hypothesis to POSSIBLY explain what was observed and stopping there and telling everyone it was the truth. Then pushing that hypothesis and promoting it and getting other people to join in on promoting it. All without ever actually proving it. Some guy/gal's guess to explain something they experienced becomes treated as the truth.
I don't have problems with speculation, hypothesis, etc. It is all we can do when we encounter things we don't understand, cannot repeat, cannot measure, etc. That doesn't mean that thing didn't happen. It also doesn't mean the speculation is wrong. It doesn't mean the speculation is right either. The problem comes when speculation is pushed as fact.
To me that is the root of most religions that I have studied. So much speculation pushed as fact, often with threats if anyone questions it.
To me that is the root of most religions that I have studied.
You have failed to notice that someone must have created the religions you have studied, and this is the proof that religious people do ask questions, the very people who found new ones.
People do get attached to old things, like Nokia 3310; not all people are willing to design a new smartphone or a new religion.
Yet in religion the apathy to create something new seems to be catastrophic. There are little more than three major religions, yet there are more than three brands of mobile phones.
Still, you can be the one that designs a new religion, despite the odds that are against this effort.
You have failed to notice that someone must have created the religions you have studied, and this is the proof that religious people do ask questions, the very people who found new ones.
No I have not. Been saying it from the very beginning in my post. You simply have failed to understand.
Speculation is thinking up possible answers to questions you are asking when you observe something you don't understand and are trying to make sense of it. That is the hypothesis stage of the scientific method.
In religion it stops there as eventually someone decides their answers to their own questions are fact and the answer without doing any testing, repeating it, sharing the method to prove it and having others confirm, etc. They just decide the thing they imagined to explain the thing is true.
A simple example would be lightning being Thor angry in the sky, Volcanoes being caused by Vulcan, etc.
Still, you can be the one that designs a new religion, despite the odds that are against this effort.
I have. It actually used to be a game. Come up with some new idea to explain reality that would be difficult to disprove because you couldn't measure anything or actually prove it. I did that decades ago in my late teens and early 20s.
Yet I have ZERO interest in seeing the creation of new religions. I believe I stated my stance on group think. At this point I don't recall if that was to you or to someone else.
Group think leads to an us vs them mentality. I certainly ponder the universe, reality, and the unseen things. I speculate on them endlessly. Yet long ago I realized that me telling people my speculations as though they were facts would be doing someone a disservice. I'd be foisting on them an imagined possibility as though it were the truth without having to prove anything. What's worse is sometimes I think of multiple speculations that could explain something but they are mutually exclusive so they can't both be true. What if I share only one of them with someone and they for whatever reason think "Wow he is smart" and then they go off an live as though my idea was the answer. That may seem like a joke, but I've seen it happen. I have no interest in that.
I share possibilities, not certainties. Individuals is what we need it doesn't have that us vs them intrinsic quality.
Basically what I am saying is I don't see any need for organized religion. Any of the positives that come from them can be accomplished without organizing and pushing dogma.
EDIT: I did consider making a religion for a while with the purpose of bringing peace between all religions. Acting as a bridge of sorts. The name I used for it when I thought of it and wrote about it was Symbiosis.
Yet that can still lead to group think. Eventually down the line some people practicing symbiosis might view those that were not as idiots and thus act towards them with bigotry, might even escalate to physical attacks, etc. Stuff like this has happened with buddhists vs taoism, etc which are both peaceful religions. Yet human nature and that dreaded us vs them group think can take the most peaceful of ideas and turn it into a bad thing. The individual embracing what works for them and respecting other individuals and seeing each of us as walking our own path. That is truly the only thing I will recommend at this point. I will not share my other speculations as certainties, only might mention them as possibilities, or partial possibilities, with the knowledge they could be completely or partially wrong.
I agree with you that religion and politics are not science and never will be. However it is my belief that on many occasions biblical history is confirmed through science.
My main reason for the image is to illustrate that a lot of the people using the word "science" to back up their agenda are actually practicing religion/politics, not science for what they push has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is pure appeal to authority, and consensus. Consensus has no place in science.
There are definite elements of biblical history that without a doubt are recounting of historical events. That doesn't mean it all is. It also doesn't mean a lot of it did not have some serious editing done by the two Councils of Nicea that created the bible several hundred years after Christ. It is known they edited out gospels and canons they didn't want to include.
I've studied it quite extensively, as well as pre-Christian religions.
They edited out half the book of Esther, how is half of a book divinely inspired? Did half the book fall off the table?
I liked the book James the Brother of Jesus for some critique of the accepted history of Jesus and an excellent expose of that vile herodian lackey of the romans Saul(Paul).
Compare the birth of Jesus as by Matthew to the one as by Luke within the bible. That opens up a rabbit hole. You may have already done this. If so you no doubt know what I am referring to.
I can actually prove it to you that scientific consensus is a thing. I am sorry for coming up with the proof so late in our discussion. I had failed to notice that scientific consensus was substantiated by Wikipedia.
Thruout our discussion you failed to show evidence that you understand how science (scientific consensus) works. You also failed to show that there is a corresponding consensus in religion. In religion, to the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus on the role of Jesus, existence of God, nature of magic, nature of life and so on.
My conclusion is, then, that science is driven by consensus, whereas there is no equivalent consensus in religion.
Curated for #informationwar (by @wakeupnd)
Ways you can help the @informationwar!
What else? How else would one make religion democratic? Do you think that religion should be enforced by a despotic god or a priest?
Science, on the other hand, is enforced by universities, people with money. Science, as opposed to religion, is driven by power.
Bitcoin is driven by consensus. Do you think there is something wrong with that?
Religion is a bad idea as far as I am concerned. All group think leads to the majority enslaving the minority. Thus, I am actually no fan of TRUE Democracy.
I don't have the right to enslave you. Myself and three people getting together do not have the right to enslave you. A city full of people deciding they want to enslave you does not grant them that right. A nation full of people does not give them the right to enslave you. A planet full of people does not give them the right to enslave you. It is evil and wrong no matter how many people vote to do it.
That isn't science. It is just another religion and they have hijacked the label science and scientists to push an argument from authority fallacy to make most people ignore their enslavement.
Science still exists. It is simply the things we find with the scientific method which is only a tool, and scientists are those who stick to the scientific method. Nowhere in the scientific method does it mention degrees or universities. This is just how they have wrapped it up all nicely in the appeal to authority bow.
This is known as a false equivalency.
Sometimes presented as apples and oranges.
Though I will bite. Bitcoin is also voluntary and cannot be forced upon you. It is a currency. All currencies are tools.
Ideologies are not tools. You are comparing tools and ideologies and they are very different.
I misunderstood your intention, then. I think of religion as engineering. A group thinks of what connects them, then try to refine it. I think it fits your definition of scientific method.
Group thinking is what religion is trying to move away from, although it is not very successful at it. New Age was an attempt to promote education and individual thinking, yet it ended up in people trying to outdo each other at becoming more 'Christ conscious', or formless, or still, without really being able to express the purpose of such practice.
There has been some positive development in promoting compassion and vegetarianism thru Buddhism, or community and equality thru Sikhism (few people, if any, are equal to the Sikh gurus, though, yet there is much successful emphasis on community in this religion).
Still, at the moment I am not really able to point to any successful religion, or one I would personally recommend.
I am trying to replace writing new scriptures (which are fixed and static texts) with writing open source software that promotes particular activity. (Whether it is advertising your local events, or sharing resources), yet it has more to do with software engineering and scientific method, as you explained it, than with religion as I know it.
I agree with your view of science being hijacked.
Nope. Scientific method can only operate on things that are measurable. Repeatable, and can be repeated by others following the instructions. It does not do anything with that which it cannot measure. That is a distinct difference between it and religion. This also means there are many things in reality that you can't explain with science (YET) as you may not be able to observe them, repeat them, measure them, etc. That doesn't mean they don't exist. Science cannot prove what doesn't exist. It only operates with that which it can measure, observer, and repeat.
Religion works off of faith, and often off of certainty it is right. The key is faith. This is also sometimes called belief. Belief has nothing to do with science.
Now there are those that claim to be scientists, or use the label science to justify something they want to push onto others who actually are NOT practicing the scientific method. They are just stealing the label to lend what they say authority, and to try to stop people questioning what they are pushing. That is more the field of religion, and label or not those people are not practicing science.
The scientific method is quite simple. It is not more than the steps provided. They are quite simple. They don't need to expanded upon. In fact, if those steps are expanded upon it might introduce bias. That ultimately is one of the reasons the scientific method was created. To help us find answers regardless of our bias. If you follow the method that actually works. If you then reject the ability for people to challenge or ask questions then you turn it into bias and it is no longer scientific.
I do understand why you would think this though. Today there is a vast amount of "scientific", "scientifically", etc crap coming out every day that is not science at all. They just are stealing the label to push an appeal to authority fallacy, and stop people from questioning, to stop people from double checking themselves... after all it is scientific so I must take it as gospel right? Wrong.
True scientists never stop questioning even their own findings.
I never said there were not good things about religion. Yet for every good thing you show there are invariably even bad things that happen. I don't like group think as it leads to an us vs them situation. It is inevitable that strife will occur. I prefer to respect individuals, and individual rights.
You mention Buddhism, and Sikhism which on paper both seem pretty good. Yet they still promote group think. They have also lead to violence and strife. Often just between denominations. Or because they have conflict with some neighboring group of a different religion such as Taoism (which at its root is also peaceful). This does not stop human nature and the result of the us vs them. I think we can learn from religions. I just don't think identifying as one of them and becoming part of a group is ideal. Instead I see learning what many religions, and many ideologies say and taking the parts that mean something to you and being an individual is the key to avoiding the us vs them mentality.
Ultimately racism, and all forms of bigotry I am aware of stem from that us vs them mentality aka group think.
I don't have a problem with religion in this respect. The problem I have is the group think. People are free to speculate on that which we cannot explain other ways. The problem is that people often will then push their speculation as fact. In the scientific method this would be observing something, coming up with a hypothesis to POSSIBLY explain what was observed and stopping there and telling everyone it was the truth. Then pushing that hypothesis and promoting it and getting other people to join in on promoting it. All without ever actually proving it. Some guy/gal's guess to explain something they experienced becomes treated as the truth.
I don't have problems with speculation, hypothesis, etc. It is all we can do when we encounter things we don't understand, cannot repeat, cannot measure, etc. That doesn't mean that thing didn't happen. It also doesn't mean the speculation is wrong. It doesn't mean the speculation is right either. The problem comes when speculation is pushed as fact.
To me that is the root of most religions that I have studied. So much speculation pushed as fact, often with threats if anyone questions it.
You have failed to notice that someone must have created the religions you have studied, and this is the proof that religious people do ask questions, the very people who found new ones.
People do get attached to old things, like Nokia 3310; not all people are willing to design a new smartphone or a new religion.
Yet in religion the apathy to create something new seems to be catastrophic. There are little more than three major religions, yet there are more than three brands of mobile phones.
Still, you can be the one that designs a new religion, despite the odds that are against this effort.
No I have not. Been saying it from the very beginning in my post. You simply have failed to understand.
Speculation is thinking up possible answers to questions you are asking when you observe something you don't understand and are trying to make sense of it. That is the hypothesis stage of the scientific method.
In religion it stops there as eventually someone decides their answers to their own questions are fact and the answer without doing any testing, repeating it, sharing the method to prove it and having others confirm, etc. They just decide the thing they imagined to explain the thing is true.
A simple example would be lightning being Thor angry in the sky, Volcanoes being caused by Vulcan, etc.
I have. It actually used to be a game. Come up with some new idea to explain reality that would be difficult to disprove because you couldn't measure anything or actually prove it. I did that decades ago in my late teens and early 20s.
Yet I have ZERO interest in seeing the creation of new religions. I believe I stated my stance on group think. At this point I don't recall if that was to you or to someone else.
Group think leads to an us vs them mentality. I certainly ponder the universe, reality, and the unseen things. I speculate on them endlessly. Yet long ago I realized that me telling people my speculations as though they were facts would be doing someone a disservice. I'd be foisting on them an imagined possibility as though it were the truth without having to prove anything. What's worse is sometimes I think of multiple speculations that could explain something but they are mutually exclusive so they can't both be true. What if I share only one of them with someone and they for whatever reason think "Wow he is smart" and then they go off an live as though my idea was the answer. That may seem like a joke, but I've seen it happen. I have no interest in that.
I share possibilities, not certainties. Individuals is what we need it doesn't have that us vs them intrinsic quality.
Basically what I am saying is I don't see any need for organized religion. Any of the positives that come from them can be accomplished without organizing and pushing dogma.
EDIT: I did consider making a religion for a while with the purpose of bringing peace between all religions. Acting as a bridge of sorts. The name I used for it when I thought of it and wrote about it was Symbiosis.
Yet that can still lead to group think. Eventually down the line some people practicing symbiosis might view those that were not as idiots and thus act towards them with bigotry, might even escalate to physical attacks, etc. Stuff like this has happened with buddhists vs taoism, etc which are both peaceful religions. Yet human nature and that dreaded us vs them group think can take the most peaceful of ideas and turn it into a bad thing. The individual embracing what works for them and respecting other individuals and seeing each of us as walking our own path. That is truly the only thing I will recommend at this point. I will not share my other speculations as certainties, only might mention them as possibilities, or partial possibilities, with the knowledge they could be completely or partially wrong.
I agree with you that religion and politics are not science and never will be. However it is my belief that on many occasions biblical history is confirmed through science.
My main reason for the image is to illustrate that a lot of the people using the word "science" to back up their agenda are actually practicing religion/politics, not science for what they push has nothing to do with the scientific method. It is pure appeal to authority, and consensus. Consensus has no place in science.
There are definite elements of biblical history that without a doubt are recounting of historical events. That doesn't mean it all is. It also doesn't mean a lot of it did not have some serious editing done by the two Councils of Nicea that created the bible several hundred years after Christ. It is known they edited out gospels and canons they didn't want to include.
I've studied it quite extensively, as well as pre-Christian religions.
They edited out half the book of Esther, how is half of a book divinely inspired? Did half the book fall off the table?
I liked the book James the Brother of Jesus for some critique of the accepted history of Jesus and an excellent expose of that vile herodian lackey of the romans Saul(Paul).
Compare the birth of Jesus as by Matthew to the one as by Luke within the bible. That opens up a rabbit hole. You may have already done this. If so you no doubt know what I am referring to.
I haven't compared them, but I will. - @openparadigm
I can actually prove it to you that scientific consensus is a thing. I am sorry for coming up with the proof so late in our discussion. I had failed to notice that scientific consensus was substantiated by Wikipedia.
Thruout our discussion you failed to show evidence that you understand how science (scientific consensus) works. You also failed to show that there is a corresponding consensus in religion. In religion, to the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus on the role of Jesus, existence of God, nature of magic, nature of life and so on.
My conclusion is, then, that science is driven by consensus, whereas there is no equivalent consensus in religion.