The Biggest Modern Religion

[Taurean]

Modern religions involve scientific principles. Newton was a religious nature who went on to discover 'the mind of God'. When Einstein followed up on his work, he also referred to the 'illimitable spirit" he and all true scientists revere - so modern religion can be seen as our belief in science.

When the current priests, the scientificists - workers in labs who operate the discoveries of the scientists (the master-minds) are challenged in their conclusions, the reaction is a dogmatic one, not one born of reason, or consciousness. To assert what science has not proven to be true yet is considered blasphemy. There is the religious aspect.

The Academic world is the Clergy of todays society.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Hello and welcome,
From my point of view, I disagree with most of what you have said. Some welcome, huh! Good willed never the less.

Yes 'some' modern religions involve 'some' scientific principles. This is a very small subset of modern religion overall. In my experience, the majority of modern religions keep their distance from science as much as possible.

Yes there were, and still are, scientists who had/have a religious background. They are few and far between. The reality is that there is a greater percentage of atheists amongst scientists than any other group. In particular cherry picking one or two comments from Einstein is not a true representation of his belief in religion. While he did reject the notion of an atheist, he also had little use for a personal god in any form.

That scientists react to a challenge with dogma rather than reason is just about as absurd a notion as I can think of. The entire point of the scientific process, which separates it from any other form of inquiry (including religion) is that challenges are not only expected but appreciated.

Nor is it true that it is considered blasphemy to assert a theory that has not been proven true. Such assertions of unproven theories may be met with skepticism, impatience and even scorn; it has certainly happened. More typically, scientists simply make that obvious comment - the theory has no basis in fact as of yet.

Blasphemy is never used in relation to science. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Definition of blasphemy:
the act or offense of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.

It is a religious term used in religious debates and to condemn religious doctrine that is considered unacceptable.

The academic world as the clergy of today's society is, again, not supported by the facts.

Definition of clergy "the body of all people ordained for religious duties, especially in the Christian Church."

The clergy is a religious term used to separate the ordained from the laity.

Though many are determined to make it so, there is little to suggest any form of relationship between science and religion. Science and religion react to the world and to ideas about the world from completely, mostly opposing, points of view.

 

[Taurean]

Thank you for the welcome. I appreciate the counterargument, as well as the positive light in which science is put by it. And yes, all true scientists have been free of dogma, but my point is that we should distinguish the people who disclose truths from those who work with them. The scientific community is foremost defined by its applied work. The discovery or creation of a theory whereby truth-value is standardized is a rare event, and I prefer to see those events separate of the enormous institutions that have been built to investigate the implications of the insight.

I see the latter as operating under severe dogmas, even though I will certainly not deny that many researchers stand in their work with honest curiosity. Cynical as I have become I can not see the academic world separate of hi tech industry and macro economic interests. I believe that the academic world is used to repress further curiosity, further theory. But I sincerely hope that I will be proven wrong. Right now, science does not work efficiently to resolve the greater problems mankind is facing - it has rather enabled our more problematic nature to overrule our more delicate nature which gives birth to the subtle, undogmatic thoughts of men like Darwin, Newton, Aristotle, Archimedes -- all of whom believed in higher natures and higher purposes.

In my experience, intellectually creative humans seek to be noble, and are aware of the spiritual implications of their discoveries.

 

[Taurean]

This monolithic view does nothing to negate the honest accomplishments of people in all fields of science. The key to the distinction between creativity and derivation is statistics. It can be argued ad infinitum whether science is a statistic or an absolute matter. The statistical argument relies on premises of general equality, and facilitates dogmatic categorization. The absolute argument will always present nature, entity, as inscrutable, and is therefore less attractive economically as well as administratively.

 

[Taurean]

Hume as representing the statistical argument, Newton and Einstein themselves as the absolutist --
the laws themselves are perceived as being, not only the phenomena that rely on them. It is a remaining-connected to the source, which is interpreted as lying beyond our empirical powers to enclose.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Taurean said "my point is that we should distinguish the people who disclose truths from those who work with them."

Ah so. I did not understand then. From this perspective I rather agree with you. Perhaps not to the extreme that you do, but there is no denying the very serious problems we have allowed to engulf our world by the end users of science discovery.

This has always been a flaw in the human condition. And not just in science. Just about any human endeavor one can name, there is someone who has found a way to abuse it. When it comes time to write the epitaph for humanity I would suggest "They knew so much, And understood so little".