The pursuit of science is better than absolute knowledge

[Gather_Wanderer]

What do you think?

https://youtu.be/wXwj4jMnWZg

 

[Inquisitor]

Interesting...don't know about that guy...will have to check it out.

I'm getting subtle INTP vibes from him...

 

[onesteptwostep]

I wonder what he means when he says 'every judgment in science stands in the edge of error and is personal'.

I'm also confused on how he makes a connection with Nazi concentration camps and how that connects with absolute power, and then with 'god'.

 

[The Grey Man]

I think it's nice, but too emotional and high-flying. For example:

"We always feel forward for what is to be hoped."

^ Slow down! Explain!

(This clip was never meant to be shown on its own, though. It's a part of BBC doc The Ascent of Man, written and presented by Bronowski, in which I'm sure the concepts are explored more thoroughly.)

I wonder what he means when he says 'every judgment in science stands in the edge of error and is personal'.

It may have something to do with the subjective nature of participating in science. Empirical evidence is an essential component of the scientific method; it is from sense experience that theories are derived, and to this we return when we test hypotheses.

I'm also confused on how he makes a connection with Nazi concentration camps and how that connects with absolute power, and then with 'god'.

Me too. I think he's reaching for the sake of drama.

 

[Tannhauser]

I guess its gonna be hard to understand what he means if you are watching it like an algorithmic text interpreter.

I think it was profound.

What he means is that science does not aspire to be perfect and infallible (e.g. like religion does). Its about the humility of science.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

What he means is that science does not aspire to be perfect and infallible (e.g. like religion does). Its about the humility of science.

You're conflating tenants of a system to individuals. Science and religion both have humility tenants but unfortunately some individual scientists/religious figures come off arrogant.

 

[Tannhauser]

You're conflating tenants of a system to individuals. Science and religion both have humility tenants but unfortunately some individual scientists/religious figures come off arrogant.

I was not referring to attitudes of individuals at all. I am talking about epistemological arrogance/humility.

The "humility tenant" of religion is something completely different, it is: bow down humbly before your dictator-creator.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

I was not referring to attitudes of individuals at all. I am talking about epistemological arrogance/humility.

The "humility tenant" of religion is something completely different, it is: bow down humbly before your dictator-creator.

"It is common to think that Faith and Reason must be in conflict. Often this view emerges because how we use the term "believe" is ambiguous." https://youtu.be/MTPHXNMi9tA

Doesn't seem arrogant to me.

As for 'humility tenants' of religions: http://serenityweb.com/?page_id=80

Again, doesn't seem arrogant and upholds the virtue of humility.

 

[redbaron]

Must have been hard to cherry pick a bunch of examples that have nothing to do with what Tannhauser was talking about.

Some systems can be founded on inherently arrogant and/or humble foundations. Yes everything is subject to interpretation and contamination by human stupidity but that's not an argument against that point.

Also even though I agree with his overall point in the original video, the guy explaining is doing a really bad job of getting the details right. But yes the essential premise is sound.

 

[Tannhauser]

"It is common to think that Faith and Reason must be in conflict. Often this view emerges because how we use the term "believe" is ambiguous." https://youtu.be/MTPHXNMi9tA

Doesn't seem arrogant to me.

As for 'humility tenants' of religions: http://serenityweb.com/?page_id=80

Again, doesn't seem arrogant and upholds the virtue of humility.

In response the video: how can you believe in something without presupposing that you believe that it exists? I mean, I believe in recycling because I also believe that recycling exists.

"Mathematicians think in symbols, physicists in objects, philosophers in concepts, geometers in images, jurists in constructs, logicians in operators, writers in impressions, and idiots in words." -- Taleb

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Tannhauser said he was focused on epistemology. Does the philosophy video not address religious epistemology? No cherry picking about it.

 

[Inquisitor]

I really know very little about this guy but he seems kind of Richard Dawkins-esque. In a way, his religion seems to be science itself. Of course that video also catches him at a very emotional point b/c he apparently lost family in the concentration camps.

God and religion must be reframed in order to gain the acceptance of INTPs:

Inside every great religion, there is a spiritual tradition that is more fundamental than the dogma and rituals, which can be very suffocating. God is nothing more than a tool. What I mean by that is that God is the personification of all that is manifested (matter, energy) and unmanifested (space, time). If you want to merge with the universe and cease to be separate from it, and I maintain that this is essentially the goal of every spiritual seeker, then it's much easier to do that if instead of trying to merge with the universe, you treat it as a God or Goddess of sorts. That way you can actually visualize and communicate with it.

Do this enough and you will "be dead to the world" as the Hindus call it. If the only thing you want out of life is to return to the source, then you'll do everything you can to break all worldly attachments, even to existence itself.

Worshipping God though is something that probably strikes many INTPs as being suspect b/c it does require some emotional engagement, something that they naturally strive to avoid. Add in the dogma that appears to penalize people for not being devout enough, and it's no wonder many INTPs are not fond of prayer.

Interestingly Jung identifies Tertullian as an INTP

 

[Haim]

"It is common to think that Faith and Reason must be in conflict. Often this view emerges because how we use the term "believe" is ambiguous." https://youtu.be/MTPHXNMi9tA

Doesn't seem arrogant to me.

As for 'humility tenants' of religions: http://serenityweb.com/?page_id=80

Again, doesn't seem arrogant and upholds the virtue of humility.

Believing in something can be "logically",believing in something without good evidence or likelihood is not reasonable,if I believe a airplane will fall on me right now,I am being unreasonable as the chance of that happening is extremely low and I have none evident to support my claim.
About the second claim of belief meaning(that have nothing to do to believing god exist)if it unreasonable to believe in god it is also unreasonable to follow him or the things he told to do,also the interruption of the bible is unreasonable.
In the jewish religion they do not eat milk and meat together because it say in the bible to not eat a gout with his mother milk
And many more religious practices that have little connection that the things that were really written.

Religion come mostly from feelings otherwise logic statement could easily make someone atheist.
Fear of death,social pressure/reasons,respect to parents,lack of meaning,why that happen?why?why life are like that?.
Then there is the more psychological origin.
Replacement of the figure that always was watching you and take care of you when you were a child,that is why people talk about god as their father.
People feel something spiritual and feel they have a soul,probable confusing something else and calling it soul instead of what it is.
To fill up a question they do not have answer for with a false answer.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

God and religion must be reframed in order to gain the acceptance of INTPs:

Inside every great religion, there is a spiritual tradition that is more fundamental than the dogma and rituals, which can be very suffocating. God is nothing more than a tool. What I mean by that is that God is the personification of all that is manifested (matter, energy) and unmanifested (space, time). If you want to merge with the universe and cease to be separate from it, and I maintain that this is essentially the goal of every spiritual seeker, then it's much easier to do that if instead of trying to merge with the universe, you treat it as a God or Goddess of sorts. That way you can actually visualize and communicate with it.

Do this enough and you will "be dead to the world" as the Hindus call it. If the only thing you want out of life is to return to the source, then you'll do everything you can to break all worldly attachments, even to existence itself.

Worshipping God though is something that probably strikes many INTPs as being suspect b/c it does require some emotional engagement, something that they naturally strive to avoid. Add in the dogma that appears to penalize people for not being devout enough, and it's no wonder many INTPs are not fond of prayer.

Interestingly Jung identifies Tertullian as an INTP

You've brought this up before and I think you've hit on an important aspect of all humanity. I have a bit of a different twist to your idea. Religion serves a humanistic yearning. It's a way to deal with being a fragment of the universe, a separate being that is conscious of our aloneness. Merging will undoubtably happen aka death but how do you live with your aloneness as a fragment? We want both, to be separate and retain our 'shape' while at the same time be connected and a part. This theme is prevalent in the sex act, a relationship, between societies, our earth and it's place in the universe. On some underlying level science is seeking similarly, that is uncovering our place in the universe.

 

[Inquisitor]

In the jewish religion they do not eat milk and meat together because it say in the bible to not eat a gout with his mother milk
And many more religious practices that have little connection that the things that were really written.

Religion come mostly from feelings otherwise logic statement could easily make someone atheist.

Nope. Had to correct you on this one. There are a lot of religious traditions that have apparently silly justifications. Nevertheless, the traditions oftentimes are quite valid.

Try eating a hunk of meat and drinking a glass of milk together at the same meal. I guarantee you 100% that your digestive system will not thank you afterwards. You will not digest the food properly. Consequently, you're almost guaranteed to experience digestive upset such as heartburn, flatulence, belching, etc.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Some of these traditions endured for hundreds of years for a very specific reason. The rationale/justification may sound stupid to us today because we have such advanced science, but in the past they didn't have science and had to resort to other tactics to promote behavior change.

Another prominent example I want to quote to you concerns a 1000-year-old Ayurvedic text from India that explains how the goddess Revati, otherwise known as "Childsnatcher", will cause a pregnant woman to have a miscarriage if she engages in very specific behaviors:

Suppose a pregnant woman who is pregnant for the first time comes into contact with people whose children have died, or with other women friends who are unclean, impure, bad, who are not accepted by society, or who have been caught by Childsnatcher. Perhaps she eats with them, washes with them, exchanges clothes or ornaments. Or she treads on the places where they bathe, or urinate, or leave their food offerings. Or, in particular, she treads on hair, nails, body lotion, or offcuts of old clothing which have been contaminated by menstrual blood, or she accepts leftovers of food, drink, herbs, perfume, flowers, or old sandals. If this happens, Childsnatcher will fasten on to her.

There are many other prohibitions besides these...

You can see that although these messages are basically using a scare-tactic (ie Revati will visit your womb and kill your unborn child) to induce proper behavior in pregnant women of the time, the intent is largely benevolent: prevent miscarriages and safeguard the wellbeing of pregnant mothers. Childsnatcher will also come for you or your loved ones if you engage in other socially unacceptable behaviors, so it's also a form of social control. That part of it bothers me a little, but on the whole, there's a lot to be learned from many of these old traditions. People too easily dismiss them as superstitious nonsense, yet thousands of years later, science discovers the benefits of many of them...