Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The inevitable march of secularism? Not so fast

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The inevitable march of secularism? Not so fast

    SU always loved to inform us that secularization was a on a steady march that would eventually crush religion, leading us to a glorious future where we sit around and sip our appletinis and wonder about how we ever could have been so foolish as to believe in a divine being. This author presents a compelling argument that such a theory is BS.

    https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-i...not-destroy-it

    In brief, global secularisation is not inevitable and, when it does happen, it is not caused by science. Further, when the attempt is made to use science to advance secularism, the results can damage science. The thesis that ‘science causes secularisation’ simply fails the empirical test, and enlisting science as an instrument of secularisation turns out to be poor strategy. The science and secularism pairing is so awkward that it raises the question: why did anyone think otherwise?
    The conflict model of science and religion offered a mistaken view of the past and, when combined with expectations of secularisation, led to a flawed vision of the future. Secularisation theory failed at both description and prediction. The real question is why we continue to encounter proponents of science-religion conflict. Many are prominent scientists. It would be superfluous to rehearse Richard Dawkins’s musings on this topic, but he is by no means a solitary voice. Stephen Hawking thinks that ‘science will win because it works’; Sam Harris has declared that ‘science must destroy religion’; Stephen Weinberg thinks that science has weakened religious certitude; Colin Blakemore predicts that science will eventually make religion unnecessary. Historical evidence simply does not support such contentions. Indeed, it suggests that they are misguided.
    Religion is not going away any time soon, and science will not destroy it. If anything, it is science that is subject to increasing threats to its authority and social legitimacy. Given this, science needs all the friends it can get. Its advocates would be well advised to stop fabricating an enemy out of religion, or insisting that the only path to a secure future lies in a marriage of science and secularism.
    Amen.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  • #2
    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    SU always loved to inform us that secularization was a on a steady march that would eventually crush religion, leading us to a glorious future where we sit around and sip our appletinis and wonder about how we ever could have been so foolish as to believe in a divine being. This author presents a compelling argument that such a theory is BS.

    https://aeon.co/ideas/why-religion-i...not-destroy-it







    Amen.
    This seems to be his thesis:

    The conflict model of science and religion offered a mistaken view of the past and, when combined with expectations of secularisation, led to a flawed vision of the future. Secularisation theory failed at both description and prediction.
    Just because religion exists, even in scientifically developed societies the 19th century vision must be inaccurate.
    It seems as if the explanation is missing something. Other factors may explain why religion has not been completely eroded such as a search for meaning in light of the absurdity of existence.

    I believe the thesis also oversimplified in order to disprove it.
    "Guitar groups are on their way out, Mr Epstein."

    Upon rejecting the Beatles, Dick Rowe told Brian Epstein of the January 1, 1962 audition for Decca, which signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead.

    Comment


    • #3
      I would like to meet this "australian laureate fellow"

      Comment


      • #4
        The conflict model of science and religion is about a way of thinking.

        It's about the difference between KNOWING something based on data because you've tried excluding the possibility that you're wrong and "KNOWING" something based on feelings and a desire to convince yourself that your preferred belief is correct despite the absence of tangible supportive data.

        That's the conflict--and it's a very real conflict.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by ByronMarchant View Post
          The conflict model of science and religion is about a way of thinking.

          It's about the difference between KNOWING something based on data because you've tried excluding the possibility that you're wrong and "KNOWING" something based on feelings and a desire to convince yourself that your preferred belief is correct despite the absence of tangible supportive data.

          That's the conflict--and it's a very real conflict.
          That's the conflict as defined by you.

          I think he makes an excellent point at the end. In many ways, science is under attack. Scientists/secularists would be well-served to dial back the hubris and antagonism towards religion.
          "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
          "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
          "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
            That's the conflict as defined by you.

            I think he makes an excellent point at the end. In many ways, science is under attack. Scientists/secularists would be well-served to dial back the hubris and antagonism towards religion.
            Below is the conflict as defined by the average religious person.

            You say the answer is to pat the ignorant on the head and say "that's cute." I say the solution is a legitimate college education--especially including general education. It won't save everyone, but it'll help.

            Last edited by ByronMarchant; 09-10-2017, 01:38 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ByronMarchant View Post
              Below is the conflict as defined by the average religious person.

              You say the answer is to pat the ignorant on the head and say "that's cute." I say the solution is a legitimate college education--especially including general education. It won't save everyone, but it'll help.
              Ha. Good luck with that approach.
              "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
              "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
              "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

              Comment


              • #8

                Comment


                • #9
                  Even though the tenets of modern secular atheism sure seem literally "true" to me there is something about this ideology that must be false in a psychological/emotional sense for most people. There is a reason that angry atheists like Sam Harris have a much smaller following than positive religious people like Joel Osteen.

                  I guess the reason for this is that we are intelligent primates -- we aren't robots. We are social creatures who need to infuse our lives with sociality, positivity, and meaning and modernist secular atheist ideologies are depressing and isolating. Religion and religious causes might continue to play a huge role in helping humans find connection and meaning for many more centuries.

                  It's disturbing though for education and science to be a casualty of the religious backlash against secularism in many parts of the world -- I think both pro-religion and anti-religion sides would be good to leave science/evolution out of this battle. Places like Notre Dame and BYU are cool in this way because they bring science and religion into close proximity and people realize that peaceful coexistence isn't a problem.

                  Tooblue that's a dumb video. Obviously our home universe, galaxy, and planet are going to seem "designed" for us in a sense because it's all we have and it's the milieu in which we emerged. That doesn't mean there is an intelligent creator.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by CardiacCoug View Post
                    Even though the tenets of modern secular atheism sure seem literally "true" to me there is something about this ideology that must be false in a psychological/emotional sense for most people. There is a reason that angry atheists like Sam Harris have a much smaller following than positive religious people like Joel Osteen.

                    I guess the reason for this is that we are intelligent primates -- we aren't robots. We are social creatures who need to infuse our lives with sociality, positivity, and meaning and modernist secular atheist ideologies are depressing and isolating. Religion and religious causes might continue to play a huge role in helping humans find connection and meaning for many more centuries.

                    It's disturbing though for education and science to be a casualty of the religious backlash against secularism in many parts of the world -- I think both pro-religion and anti-religion sides would be good to leave science/evolution out of this battle. Places like Notre Dame and BYU are cool in this way because they bring science and religion into close proximity and people realize that peaceful coexistence isn't a problem.

                    Tooblue that's a dumb video. Obviously our home universe, galaxy, and planet are going to seem "designed" for us in a sense because it's all we have and it's the milieu in which we emerged. That doesn't mean there is an intelligent creator.
                    What's dumb is your last point: our universe and galaxy are designed for us, precisely because we exist in said universe and galaxy that gave birth to us, regardless the question of whether or not our existence is the result of randomness or ... whatever? We exist as designed by the universe and galaxy we live in.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by tooblue View Post
                      What's dumb is your last point: our universe and galaxy are designed for us, precisely because we exist in said universe and galaxy that gave birth to us, regardless the question of whether or not our existence is the result of randomness or ... whatever? We exist as designed by the universe and galaxy we live in.

                      “The mathematics itself suggests a movement in which everything … enfolds into the whole and the whole enfolds it in it … You could therefore say that everything is enfolded in this whole, or even in each part, and that it then enfolds. I call this implicate order, the enfolded order, and this unfolds into an explicate order. The implicate is the enfolded order. It unfolds into the explicate order, in which everything is separated … The implicate order would help us … to see that everything enfolds everything … everybody not merely depends on everybody, but actually everybody is everybody in a deeper sense. We are earth, because all our substance comes from the earth and goes back to it.” —David Bohm, p. 128, from his book 'On Creativity'

                      More related to Lebowski's thoughts, though perhaps abstractly:

                      Last edited by tooblue; 09-10-2017, 03:26 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by CardiacCoug View Post
                        ... There is a reason that angry atheists like Sam Harris have a much smaller following than positive religious people like Joel Osteen.

                        ...

                        Tooblue that's a dumb video.
                        Physician, heal thyself!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Clark Addison View Post
                          Physician, heal thyself!
                          Yeah I prefer Sam Harris to Joel Osteen and always will -- although I enjoy an Osteen pep talk too!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            can everyone just stop comparing their enfolds please
                            Te Occidere Possunt Sed Te Edere Non Possunt Nefas Est.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by old_gregg View Post
                              can everyone just stop comparing their enfolds please
                              Bro, I don't even know what an enfold is. I bet mine is small though.
                              Get confident, stupid
                              -landpoke

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X