Hi, WW. What important event is not given a narrative? What is civilization without narrative? What is history? How do we know who we are? We don’t literally peck each other into order. We talk each other into order.
When an individual of another species runs into a “mating” partner, it might walk away with a memory. We walk away with a story.
Ok Got ya, so I’m sorry but I’m not sure I understand what that means in relevance to this thread ~
Oh, sorry. Religion. Handy catchall narrative for civilization. It’s a complex matter to replace it. The narrative, that is.
Welcome back, though i assume you wont hang out for an extended period of time.
What do you mean by “Narrative?”
Ancient Sumarians writing on clay tablets was a good idea.
Is that like narrative? Some kind of memory of society?
Hi, Dan. Had the day off. I just mean “story.”
ok.
Congrats on the day off.
Well Yes, you’re very right. By religion I should be more specific in that I meant:
" Simple Definition of religion
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods"
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
And by gods - I would mean:
Full Definition of god
1
capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
also fodder for philosophers.
Without history, our story, his story, her story, how do we find or know our place in this world?
Withour our narratives, how do we come to understand one another?
How do we see our mistakes and the path along which we are being pulled?
What everyone seems to be missing is the fact that there has never been, nor will there ever be, anything BUT religion.
When Christianity was on the rise there was the truth of Christianity and all else was myth. When Judaism was on the rise, there was the truth of the one God and all else was myth. When the Greek pantheon was on the rise, there was the truth of the Greek gods and all else was myth. When the Roman pantheon was on the rise, there was the truth of the Roman gods and all else was myth.
And when Science was on the rise, there was the truth of science and all else was myth.
Atheism, scientism, humanism, nihilism … just another religion with communal prophets rather than individual prophets.
Yes. You are absolutely right. It is always the same or at least very similar, and so its history is cyclic, spirally ciclic.
No James, Scientism is a religion, but not science. If one wants to create a belief system from science that is of course, not the way I provided in my OP. Again, beliefs - even beliefs on atheism - ought not to be propagated… knowledge should. Science does not allow beliefs - if it does then it is a corruption of what science is, and as such isn’t science. People have been believing this and that without having any idea whether their beliefs are true for all of civilization yes, but that doesn’t mean it needs to continue.
I see no cycle of “scientism” being cyclical - nor do I see scientism as very prevalent in society. Science is making an impact - and science as we know it wasn’t around for more than a few hundred years. The justification for science is based on a very solid philosophy that has brought us to exponential growth in understanding and knowledge of nature. The age of knowledge, one might say, has just begun. I would like to compliment that with the age of knowing when we don’t know.
James, do you not see any reason to separate truth (facts) from myth and fiction? although myth can be quite enriching and fiction too.
What is the “truth” of Christianity, James? Much of it is based on myth, isn’t it? How much of the NT can we be sure is even “real” facts?
Many truths are simply based on beliefs. They’re subjective truths but are they necessarily “real” - I mean part of the reality of the world?
Do you actually believe that the Judaic/Christian God is the one which is based on “reaility”? I’m not saying to take away a person’s beliefs but let’s call them for what they are - beliefs. Not actual facts.
Atheists often/usually claim not to have beliefs. Therefore, they feel free to propagate their ‘knowledge’.
You can’t do science without beliefs.
When you propose a scientific hypothesis, you have a belief in the hypothesis. The testing of the hypothesis through experiments and mathematical modelling is an attempt to get sufficient evidence to justify your belief in the hypothesis.
I don’t know of many atheists who claim they don’t have beliefs. Usually often claim this? Where do you see this at?
You can do science without beliefs. Hypothesis are not to be believed. You’re incorrect because if you believe in a hypothesis your path on the scientific method can be skewered by your preconceived beliefs.
I have seen it on every internet philosophy forum that I have visited.
Explain how you think that a scientist feels or thinks about his/her hypothesis … it’s not knowledge and according to you, it’s not belief. What is it?
Yeah, scientific hypotheses are preconceived beliefs - that’s exactly what they are - conceived before the experimental verification.
Its seeing possible efficacy in a hypothesis. It is not about belief - its about possibilities. A scientist must keep their options open. Having hope that a hypothesis is right is one thing. Believing it is right before testing, experimentation etc… is the wrong path.
Intuitive probability leans toward the affirmation of a positive result, rather than it’s negation. That such has been/is the case, enables a heuristic probability of fact to outweigh it’s negative.
This does confirm an evolving purposeful structural development of, and connection of a purposeful design. Hypothesis evolves with an increasing rate of certainty.
If you didn’t believe that it was right before testing, then why would you focus on that one hypothesis instead of pursuing another of a infinite number of other hypotheses?
You can hypothesize anything … so why pick one thing?
Hint : you believe that it is right (or wrong).
Then your intent is to show that is either right or wrong by doing experiments. You are trying to get stronger justification for the belief. If the justification is very strong then the belief transitions to knowledge.