The New Atheists; The Cult of Science?

[Qfwfq]

No thanks, I already stated that I think this nitpicking discussion is a waste of my time. I have science books/papers to go read this summer.

Fine, then you should have gone to read your books and papers without wasting your time by stepping in, just to imply that folks here are nitpicking and retarded. :thumbs_up

 

Stating that you don't understand someone's point is even less of a justification for implying that they are retarded, you either request clarifications in a constructive manner or consider it over your head and read those things that are worth your time. I did not see fit to clarify, prior to you answering the questions I asked you. No worries.

 

Anyone who is yet to satisfy themselves on this semantic issue might find some more answers on these pages:

What comes across through those sites is that the matter cannot be agreed by all without convening on a definition of atheist. As I said, the term has been historically used in inconsistent ways, as described by:

 

atheism -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

 

No one could deny the importance in this thread of agreeing upon the meaning of the word atheist. If one considers it to have the same meaning as agnostic then clearly they should see no point having both. But it does make sense to have both because the distinction exists, whether or not one's intellectual faculties can discern it. Given this and the fact that agnostic was coined by Huxley and is well defined, there's no point insisting that atheist must mean the same. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has it meaning "one who believes that there is no deity" and hence being a belief. Agnostic means having no belief. Retarded nitpicking?

 

The reason I stepped in was an attempt to tone things down, which were largely due to that disagreement but also to misconceptions (such as comparing belief in God with belief in the toothfairy).

[InfiniteNow]

Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy? What about Apollo and Thor? Are you agnostic about them? How about Zeus?

 

You probably are not, despite your inability to prove their non-existence. You likely have a tremendous confidence that they do not actually exist, and for all intents and purposes you are atheistic in your approach to them.

 

This is (IINM) Galapagos' larger point... That whenever the concept of an Abrahamic god enters the mix, the logic suddenly becomes inconsistent and folks cling to this "you can't possibly know!" response. Like him, I find it somewhat retarded that people are not willing to call themselves "agnostic" regarding the countless deities laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology, but practically force the issue when it regards jahweh.

[InfiniteNow]

Hey Infinite I think you may have possibly overlooked a third category of atheist - those who neither believe in a Supreme Being (whatever that is) nor beliefs (we either know, don't know or can't know) and are frankly bored with the question.

 

Hi enorbet,

 

Thank you for your reply, and I most certainly understand your point about my approach, as you're not the first person to raise the issue. I personally tend to think that moderates provide unearned cover and protection for believers, and that this is part of the problem.

 

Either way, I want to make sure it's clear that those words in the post above are not mine, but instead originated with Dan Dennett. I apologize that my decision to indent them alone did not make this very clear. That was my fault, but you were at your opening actually responding to something written by Dennett, and not by me.

 

Thanks again.

[HydrogenBond]

The main difference between the atheists and many religious peoples are the atheists try to be rational in terms of their outlook toward reality. Although physical reality follows these rational principles, human nature is not fully rational. All atheists are not like Mr Spock, where all their emotions and irrational impulses are checked and non-existent. They get emotional too and can become under the influence of the irrational nature of human nature, even as they reason.

 

For example, many religions push for lifetime marriage. This seems irrational in terms of the scientific observations of animal and primitive nature. To be more consistent with these physical observations, the atheist change this to a freer social orientation of choice. But this social change did not alter the irrational nature of human nature. All that has changed is the irrational social matrix has become more rational, in which human irrationality will being expressed.

 

Ironically, the rational scientific change actually allows greater freedom for human nature irrationality, because it allows quicker changes in state, based on the irrational whims of mood change and impulse. This allows people to be more irrational, more of the time, moving away from rational.

 

Religion has an outward social irrationality, which often requires controlling much of the irrational of human nature. Atheism has a more rational outward social structure, which allows more free expression of the irrationality of human nature. The atheist group is more rational in terms of collective thinking, but the individual has more irrational freedom. Religion has the collective being more irrational. However, the individual often has to control their inner irrationality making them less irrational individually.

 

If the religious person stays married for a lifetime, they lose many of the irrational, emotional and impulsive options the atheist give themselves. The extra inner irrationality of the atheists, defines an inner religion effect that helps to reverse engineer the irrational making it appear rational, even when the math doesn't add up.

 

Atheists dwell on the god angle, which is irrational. But they never seem to bring up their higher irrational freedom. Let us do the math and see if atheists have opened up more irrational freedom, which will have an impact on base rationality. What clouds this over is parroting the party line like a religion so it stays on the rational surface and away from the math that adds time average irrationality of human nature.

[Boerseun]

The main difference between the atheists and many religious peoples are the atheists try to be rational in terms of their outlook toward reality.

Which seems to me to be a pretty good thing, all things considered.

Although physical reality follows these rational principles, human nature is not fully rational. All atheists are not like Mr Spock, where all their emotions and irrational impulses are checked and non-existent. They get emotional too and can become under the influence of the irrational nature of human nature, even as they reason.

I wouldn't exactly equate emotions with religion or the lack thereof. Emotions are mostly chemical in nature, whilst religion is a failure of logic, i.e. a misunderstanding of cause and effect.

For example, many religions push for lifetime marriage. This seems irrational in terms of the scientific observations of animal and primitive nature.

Why would that be? I've known atheist couples who have been married for many years, happily so. Polygamy/Monogamy has nothing to do with religion. There are many cases of charismatic bible-thumpers who've been caught having a bit of sex on the side. Not to mention those catholics with a penchant for young boys. Human nature is human nature, and as long as humans are around there will be sexual abandon amongst individuals with a penchant for it, be they believers or atheists.

Religion has an outward social irrationality, which often requires controlling much of the irrational of human nature. Atheism has a more rational outward social structure, which allows more free expression of the irrationality of human nature. The atheist group is more rational in terms of collective thinking, but the individual has more irrational freedom. Religion has the collective being more irrational. However, the individual often has to control their inner irrationality making them less irrational individually.

I understand what you're trying to say, but you're wrong. There's this ages-old misconception that if everybody turned atheist, the world will go bat-****. This is due to the belief that the Church is the one and only wellspring of morality. In the scenario you picture above, the individual atheist has no more and no less personal freedom (or irrationality) as what is allowed to him by Law. The State, with the passing of laws and the definition of what is right and wrong, is the issuer of morality, and results in rewards and penalties for following those laws, in this life. Not in some whimsical "hereafter". Religion certainly has a role to play in society, but only in the absence of a strong central State. Which we have. But in the old days, when Moses and Co. were leading the Israelites through the desert, there was no such central authority. And there was no way to enforce laws that streamlined society without police and courts being present. So, the authority was deemed to be some sort of an invisible uber-ghost who sees everything you do, wherever you are. There was no getting away from it, and the punishment was severe. The reward, however, for following those laws, were comparably big and very enticing. To live forever in paradise... now that's a winning ticket.

 

But all it resulted in was that adherents to the same belief lived in relative peace and harmony and mutual respect, without any organs of State being present. But it should be clear to anyone with more than two braincells that we have passed that point in the History of Humanity, and quite a few years ago, already.

 

There is no "irrationality" in the individual atheist. There is merely the rational outlook on life with the knowledge that morality is issued by the society via the State, and there are clear limitations to your actions not imposed on you by some invisible uberbully.

Atheists dwell on the god angle, which is irrational.

Now that is clearly wrong. Whereas atheists "dwell" on the god angle, they might do so because the irrationality of it is glaring, and unbelievable, and is the very first premise and the foundation, the bedrock, if you will, of belief that needs the clear irrationality (and blatant madness) of it to be pointed out. Believers simply don't consider the craziness of it, and accept it on face value without question. If anything, the individual believer is the irrational nut, here.

But they never seem to bring up their higher irrational freedom.

What "irrational freedom"? An individual atheist is only so free as allowed by the Laws laid down by a democratically elected State, which is a consensus of all individuals subject to it.

Let us do the math and see if atheists have opened up more irrational freedom, which will have an impact on base rationality. What clouds this over is parroting the party line like a religion so it stays on the rational surface and away from the math that adds time average irrationality of human nature.

Okay, let's do the math. There is nothing that can come from Religion that is rational, because the premise is irrational. Believers might ponder the atheist objection to the very first element of belief, that there is no evidence to the existence of God, and move on and proceed with much-worded and intense navel-gazing as if the atheist objection is merely a tiny technicality and a small detail that has no real bearing on the discussion. But in the final analysis, you should realize that the atheist objection is not something to be dismissed, it is the pointing out of the foundation of the believer's entire world-system to be fallacious and merely full of hot air. And, like the biggest building you'd care to mention, if the foundation is removed, the entire thing comes down. Everything flowing from a flawed premise, is also flawed. But believers might try and pussyfoot around the objection and carry on saying "you must believe like a child" and everything else makes sense and falls into place. But the foundation is inherently flawed, and therefore the irrationality in this regard lies squarely on the believer's shoulders, individually and as a group.

[Qfwfq]

Are you agnostic about the tooth fairy? What about Apollo and Thor? Are you agnostic about them? How about Zeus?

I think I have stated my position and shouldn't need to reply to bait such as this. If you really haven't already gathered it, I'll only say that I'm definitely not agnostic about the tooth fairy and not even about many specific religious doctrines. If you can't sort it out, call it off.

 

I personally tend to think that moderates provide unearned cover and protection for believers, and that this is part of the problem.

Unearned cover and protection? From who and what? There's also the problem due to people thinking they must battle tooth and claw against anybody who believes in anything not observable and proven by scientific method. What skin are they off your nose?

 

Cool it. Live and let live. Find a more useful way to occupy your time. ;)

[InfiniteNow]

I think I have stated my position and shouldn't need to reply to bait such as this. If you really haven't already gathered it, I'll only say that I'm definitely not agnostic about the tooth fairy and not even about many specific religious doctrines.

Why not? How can you possibly know? You're atheist about the tooth fairy? You're atheist about Thor? Goodness me... Was it not you who in post #70 said, "it's more correct to say agnostic than atheist" when coming into this thread to oppose the views I was putting forth regarding the definition of atheism?

 

Why the inconsistency? What reason have you for holding on to such a double standard only when jahweh is involved?

 

 

Unearned cover and protection? From who and what?

The essence of my statement is that the moderates, and even many non-believers, tend to be offended on behalf of believers themselves when someone such as myself makes a critique or comment which shows no deference for their faith. The moderates, and many non-believers, provide cover, instead attacking my criticism and deflecting the need for the believer to support their position. They tend frequently to focus entirely on the one who has presented the critique, as well as the method they've chosen, and completely derail the critique itself... leaving the believers unrequired to actually address the questions put forth. It's as if believers have managed to co-opt these others who DO NOT share the same beliefs to stand up and be offended on their behalf. My point is simply that this is part of the problem.

 

I am trying to suggest that the best defense against criticism and reason is logic and rationality... to support ones position openly, and to address any and all criticisms leveled... not to suppress authentic debate and call for censorship (which frequently happens among moderates) due to the sensitive nature of the topic.

[HydrogenBond]

Another difference between atheist and religious orientations has to do with the time scale created in the mind. For a religious person the goal may be heaven, enlightenment, etc., which happens way in the future, relative to their beliefs. For an atheist, the time scale is set by the hard data, which is more in the present and/or past or shorter term. Even evolution is considered a process and not a goal, so there is no future goal to strive for.

 

For example, the religious dogma of a lifetime marriage implies planning for 40-50 years, since there is no easy way out. With divorce the plan can be 1-50 years, with the lower end using more irrational impulse. When the good impulse is gone you change partners for better good impulse. With religion one is required to look long term and adjust the short term impulse so you can make it all the way. The atheist uses the hard data of the short term impulse and lets it run its duration, whatever that is. There is no hard future data just the present and past.

 

This cuts to the heart of what turns some aspects of atheism into religion. Not everyone who is recruited as an atheist is rational like a scientist. The question becomes, what would happen if a semi-rational person became an atheist? They might be able to repeat the party line, from memory, like dogma, but may live life in a way that is less than fully rational. Since they may not be able to fully reason all the doctrine, they might follow the procedures with faith. If So and So says it, that is good enough, without really being able to understand all the logic.

 

Others who are semi-rational or irrational, might also cherry pick from the doctrine and use what they like in terms of supporting their irrational impulses, such as the pleasure principle. Others, through human nature, might see an opportunity in these recruits and start an atheist cult, for the semi-rational followers, who want to be told what to think but in a way that tells then what they want to hear.

[enorbet2]

I would like to point out one major difference between the cult of religion and any hypothetical cult of science. One major bone of contention in most if not all religions has to do with the existence of a "bible", some single tome, book, sheaf of parchment, whatever that is often proferred (if not stuffed down others' gullets) as literally and divinely inspired or even written as incontrovertible Truth.

 

It is easy to see that only a relatively few people, even within that religion, actually agree what a literal translation means, especially difficult over millennia and numerous language translations (some heavily dependent on speech and/or local context) and since the only Ultimate Arbiter is purported to be God and He/She isn't talking (at the very least to everybody) the whole thing becomes completely arbitrary with no hope whatsoever at any definitive hard facts. As a result we have people who call themselves by a same or similar name who effectively have very little in common with regards to value systems, how they actually live their lives and treat others. Relatively few, if any, Muslims live like Mohammed, few Jews like Moses, few Christians like Christ, few Buddhists like Buddha, etc etc.

 

Whatever nit-picking we may engage in on the exact choices of terms ie atheist, agnostic, etc. there is no single bible and yet there is one common trait and that is to live one's life without regard to what may or may not take place after death and therefore to glean morality from the rational choices of what constitutes or can constitute honor, justice, and fairplay. Even very young children and slightly irrational people (and even some lower animals) can understand "Live and Let Live" or "The Golden Rule". The hard part isn't deciding what is moral and right but deciding to and carrying through to actually live those principals especially when the going gets rough. That requires no high IQ, no measurable level of rationality, no bible and no divine inspiration or judgment - reward or retribution. It only requires a little character regardless of source.

 

In such situations, simpler is usually better, and simply eliminating the endless bickering over the biblical translation smokescreen has to be better and far less like a cult than any religion. Once the human race as a whole finally embraces Reason, unclouded by unsubstantiated trivia and philosophical questions with no clear answers and zero relevance to life down here on planetside, the world will be so incredibly changed for the better I would be happy and proud to pass on to that subsequent generation the problem of dealing with whether what is left is a cult or not. Unfortunately, to my way of thinking, that is probably many generations away as of yet.

 

The problem with Evolution isn't whether it is true or not, it's that it is so achingly slow.

[sman]

I would like to point out one major difference between the cult of religion and any hypothetical cult of science. One major bone of contention in most if not all religions has to do with the existence of a "bible", some single tome, book, sheaf of parchment, whatever that is often proferred (if not stuffed down others' gullets) as literally and divinely inspired or even written as incontrovertible Truth.

 

The Bible is based on the best science available. The science of 4th century bc Babylon, mostly. When David consults the ephod (throwing sacred bits of bone into a circle scratched in the earth for a yes/no answer to a queston recited to the sky) he is accessing state-of-the-art technology of his time. Not unlike me consulting this laptop.

 

I think the defineing difference between the cults of Jesus, Abraham and Mohammed and the cult of Galileo is the latter's reliance on error-correction, through empiricle testing, the way Galileo tested the midieval notions of impetus from (as the stroy goes) the tower of Piza. Had David applied Galileo's method to test the ephod he would've found it to be correct about one time in two.

 

This method has proven to be very powerful and yielded the closest approximations to the truth to date in every area it has been applied. But we are no different than David, and we should expect ourselves to treat science the way David treated the ephod, even if it yields a higher percentage of correct results. We will have a tendancy to stuff scientific conclusions "down others gullets". That's the way we are. There are lessons in the Bible, really, and this is one of them.

[HydrogenBond]

The new testament has some useful quotes that sort of predict the present/future. Christ said when he died, he would leave behind a comforter, the spirit of truth, who would be with humans forever. I think it was Paul who extrapolated and said, " I have no need for anyone to teach me, the spirit inside teaches me. The movement was suppose to be a departure from herd thinking, into where individuals were able to think for themselves. This didn't go over well with Rome, who although in many ways was rational and even scientific for the period, were also quite bizarre and cruel relative to their appetites and impulses. This spirit could have been eluding to reason where one can look at the world around them and deduce the reality of the situation, without the requirement of dogmatic bottom lines to think for you.

 

Paul goes further and talks of the children of the promise and the children of the bondwomen. The children of the bondwomen are symbolically the children of servants. They can only think based on what the master says, whoever that master may be. The children of the promise, are free and can think independently like a free person who is not subject to intellectual subjugation.

 

Although these 2000 year old ideas are part of Christianity, it is not stressed all the way to the logical end. Most institutions prefer people remain children of bondwomen, where some master will do the thinking. Science is a little more open to free thinking and appears to be heading in the direction that began 2000 years ago.

 

Another aspect of that doctrine, was because of the spirit of truth, there was no longer any need for law. It may have worked under the assumption that the rational person could weigh all the data and do the right thing, without needing a master's whip. Law is needed if one runs on impulse. The atheists are sort of heading in the right direction with respect to decreasing moral laws, but appear to go in the opposite direction relative to civil laws. If you compare the number of civil laws in the bible, to the 10 meter law stack of today, we are moving retro, even by ancient standards, because of the children of bondwomen have irrational extrapolated impulse.

 

Religions deduced you only needed to regulate basic human nature to minimize the big stack of laws. The Holy Spirit movement, reduced the entire ancient stack to just two guidelines; love god and love your neighbor. That tiny law note, was all the children of the promise needed, since they could deduce the rest via their inner spirit which always seeks the truth, without being beholden to a master.

[sman]

In no way do I believe the bible should be mined for moral instruction, and I apologize if my previous post conveyed this. I only mean to say that we are human, and will have a tendancy to treat atheism the way humans have treated religion in the past. I think we should be very cautious of this and attentive to the lessons of history.

[Qfwfq]

Why not? How can you possibly know? You're atheist about the tooth fairy? You're atheist about Thor? Goodness me... Was it not you who in post #70 said, "it's more correct to say agnostic than atheist" when coming into this thread to oppose the views I was putting forth regarding the definition of atheism?

 

Why the inconsistency? What reason have you for holding on to such a double standard only when jahweh is involved?

Now, didn't I tell you that you were baiting me?

 

You display not only misconceptions but argumentative fallacies, including the blatant strawman of generalizing the words of mine that you quoted. Here's the whole thing I said:

First, atheism more properly indicates the belief that no god exists, otherwise it's more correct to say agnostic than atheist.

Anyone may now compare it with the fragment that you quoted and what you applied it to.:D

 

The essence of my statement is that the moderates, and even many non-believers, tend to be offended on behalf of believers themselves when someone such as myself makes a critique or comment which shows no deference for their faith. The moderates, and many non-believers, provide cover, instead attacking my criticism and deflecting the need for the believer to support their position. They tend frequently to focus entirely on the one who has presented the critique, as well as the method they've chosen, and completely derail the critique itself... leaving the believers unrequired to actually address the questions put forth. It's as if believers have managed to co-opt these others who DO NOT share the same beliefs to stand up and be offended on their behalf. My point is simply that this is part of the problem.

 

I am trying to suggest that the best defense against criticism and reason is logic and rationality... to support ones position openly, and to address any and all criticisms leveled... not to suppress authentic debate and call for censorship (which frequently happens among moderates) due to the sensitive nature of the topic.

Your conduct makes it impossible for anyone to engage in a reasonable, logical and rational critical discussion, not only with you but even with others where you are present. And I, of course, am the one that's nitpicking.:)

 

I said, if you cannot sort it out then call it off. Don't deceive others about what I say and mean.

[InfiniteNow]

Your conduct makes it impossible for anyone to engage in a reasonable, logical and rational critical discussion, not only with you but even with others where you are present. And I, of course, am the one that's nitpicking.

You and TheBigDog need to stop making everything personal with me. It's irritating and out of line.

 

If I've misunderstood your position, then clarify it.

There is no need to continue with the personal attacks on my character or ability.

 

You are both site elders. Start acting like it.

[HydrogenBond]

The main reason atheism is often seen as a religion, by formal religion, not all atheists are fully rational, even if that is the definition of atheism.

 

If one can't be critical, even of the atheist doctrine, how can one be fully rational. Without that flexibility it comes down to faith. In the ideal world, if one critically analyzed the atheist doctrine and reasonably conclude the same things, this would be rational. Memorizing does not require critical thinking, but it can create the illusion of critical thinking simply by parroting the logic line. One could do this in a foreign language and not even know what the words mean, but it would sound rational.

 

One logical way to compare the fruit of atheism to that of religion has to do with laws. Law is needed to help control the irrational aspects of human nature, which cause some humans to violate the rights of other humans. Relative to law, this irrational not only comes from the "criminal" but also by the makers of laws. For example, the irrational nanny mentality, works under the irrational assumption the flock is childish and irrational and needs mothering via more laws. I don't rationally need nannying, but I will be forced to obey, eliminating one more level of cause and effect from me. The more laws we create, the more irrational impulse we are dealing with, on both sides of the law.

 

The separation of church and state prevents religious laws from permeating the state. The atheists have tried to clean house and have done a good job. This means we have a controlled experiment with primarily atheist influence. Ironically, how is this atheist doctrine of rational thinking creating more irrationality (need for laws) if it is suppose to be rational? This defies logic.

 

Ironically, the irrational orientations of religion, don't use the 10 meter thick law data set of the atheist influence, which grows daily. It only uses one moderate sized book to do the same thing. The religious approach was to regulate irrational human nature, so there is less mess to clean up with more laws. The atheist way is open up human nature and clean up the mess with more and more laws. Which is rational in terms of results, with rational implying a tighter fit?

 

The practical problem I see for atheism is connected to empirical science. It is not fully rational science, not in terms of science procedure, but in terms of the results. It is somewhere between irrational and rational. Rational will form logical order, without exceptions, or it is not fully rational. Irrational is chaotic without predictable preliminary order, although there is often basic results stemming from the chaos. Laws try to anticipate the chaos, but there is always something new emerging out of the irrational chaos. Empirical is in the middle creating some level of order within the irrational chaos, while allowing exceptions, without effecting the correlation. This should bother the rational mind, who does not have so much flexibility. He has to walk a straight line between point and can't stagger around.

 

Atheist should try to ween themselves way from empirical, and learn to be more fully rational. Empirical and statistical are similar to oracle thinking, where we consult a math oracle to find order in chaos, with the oracle telling you what to think. One oracle can say this is good for you, while the next oracle will say it is bad for you. Political consensus will then chose which oracle to use, based on emotional appeal. Both oracles can be right, which is irrational, so it comes down to consensus.

 

Within that irrational consensus, human nature has room to extrapolate irrational impulse needing more laws. This is where atheism gets its religious appeal. I am trying to help the atheist see the rational light, so they can evolve. They are still partially attached to the primal ooze of empirical chaos, which has an impact on critical thinking.

[enorbet2]

No offense and nothing personal, sman, but I strongly disagree with virtually everything you've stated in the below quoted post. I say no offense because I can't conclude that your thinking is necessarily flawed, especially relative to your own beliefs, but certainly according to any logical, provable, criteria these things you've said assume the conclusion in your premises ie: Science is somehow equivalent to a cult. I'd like to check your premises and likely you should as well.

 

Since it is reasonable to assume that few or no non-believers are going to contend that Science *IS* a cult (somewhat different from *could become* a cult with some people - more on that below) because it does not fit the criteria for the definition. Since there actually are several "checkboxes" that help define unambiguously what a cult is, I intend for the purposes of this single post to only touch on a few important ones to keep my post somewhat reasonable in length and simpler for dialogue. For now, if anyone would like to see all of them they can be found here: Robert Jay Lifton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia as referenced in the larger wiki thread of Cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia .

 

It is possibly of some interest that by linking to a compendium of thought in order to seek a definition of terms before arguing those terms, that this demonstrates another major difference between "cult" and whatever grouping anyone might think belongs to Science, when really we are talking about methodology. People represent cults. People don't represent Science. Science is a system of rules of evidence, laws and theory (and theory to be sure in scientific terms not the common mistake of equating theory with dreams, "envisionings", or pulling things out of orifices).

 

The Bible is based on the best science available. The science of 4th century bc Babylon, mostly. When David consults the ephod (throwing sacred bits of bone into a circle scratched in the earth for a yes/no answer to a queston (sic) recited to the sky) he is accessing state-of-the-art technology of his time. Not unlike me consulting this laptop.

 

(Wasn't the ephod a garment?)

 

From the Cult (religious practice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite the existence of popular cult checklists, anthropologists and sociologists have argued that no one has been able to unambiguously define "cult" in a way that identifies only groups who will become illegally abusive or destructive. However, without attempting to predict crimes or torts by groups, scientific criteria of characteristics attributed to cults do exist. A little-known example is Alexander and Rollins' 1984 study, which concluded that the socially well-received group Alcoholics Anonymous is a cult by using the model of Lifton's thought reform techniques[12] and applying those to AA's group indoctrination methodology.[13

 

I submit that Science has no commonality with such "Higher Power" indoctrination and does not depend on any form of absolutism, subjugation and surrender as even AA does

let alone destructive cults.

The Bible is based on the best science available. The science of 4th century bc Babylon, mostly. When David consults the ephod (throwing sacred bits of bone into a circle scratched in the earth for a yes/no answer to a queston (sic)

recited to the sky) he is accessing state-of-the-art technology of his time. Not unlike me consulting this laptop.

 

 

Surely you don't really believe this to be true? Mysticism is not merely old science. I doubt you would continue to use your laptop if it were only consistent half of the time and I am certain that you'd never fly in another airplane or cross a bridge if they crashed 50% of the time. Science has never relied on such poor instruments. Even at the time of David any child with a piece of string could recreate pi to use a wheel for measuring linear distance on the ground. Consider that Cleopatra (69BC-30BC) is nearer to us in time than she is to the construction of the pyramids, which began thousands of years before David. There was better science at the time than sacred bones and garments, at least for things that were actually possible if far more amazing and long-lasting than mere divination.

 

10,000 or more years before that, spear points and hammer stones were crafted due to a tried and true set of rules, defined by considerably better than 50/50 odds. A tribe hunting with dull or brittle spear points would have been decimated in short order with such odds.

 

 

I think the defineing (sic) difference between the cults of Jesus, Abraham and Mohammed and the cult of Galileo is the latter's reliance on error-correction, through empiricle (sic) testing, the way Galileo tested the midieval (sic) notions of impetus from (as the stroy (sic) goes) the tower of Piza(sic) . Had David applied Galileo's method to test the ephod he would've found it to be correct about one time in two.

 

The very fact that David required no proof other than tradition, the passing down of "The Word" for the efficacy of the ephod, conveniently adjusting his memory and interpretation of his results to fit the prophecy preventing him or anyone else for many generations from throwing those bones down in disgust (or carve theme into cubes and paint sequential dots on them) at such lousy odds, proves that this was not science, was not even technology. This was and is faith-based mysticism, pure and simple, since it required no evidence, no proof.

 

This method has proven to be very powerful and yielded the closest approximations to the truth to date in every area it has been applied. But we are no different than David, and we should expect ourselves to treat science the way David treated the ephod, even if it yields a higher percentage of correct results.

 

Powerful? Higher percentage? 50/50 odds cancels out. It is equivalent to no results. Perhaps you are no different from David but I assure you scientists subject to peer review must produce results far more powerful than even odds. Perhaps David, and other practitioners, improved their odds much like Palm Readers do by personal interpretation through observation of details and general knowledge as well as feedback from the consumer to tweak and deliver what the crowd wishes to hear or to make an ambiguous prophecy, and then, after the fact, claim that was what they meant all along and claim the consumer was just too dense or not attuned to realize it.

 

We will have a tendancy (sic) to stuff scientific conclusions "down others gullets". That's the way we are. There are lessons in the Bible, really, and this is one of them.

 

If this were true this forum would not likely exist because everything would be decided and it is far from so. As in the scientific community at large, dialogue is welcome here. Scientific theory is constantly updated and revised, and constantly under attack with little in the way of any governing body, and no individual to my knowledge has ever been imprisoned or burned at the stake for spouting an opposing theory (even if it was hogwash) to the scientific community. There is no scientific equivalent to "heresy", "blasphemy", "witchery" or "demonic possession". Some people think there are lessons to be learned from Nostradamus's ambiguous quatrains probably because those people blur the line between Art and Science.

 

Art requires and thrives on ambiguity lending Universality and inviting everyone to project into it what they want to see. Bibles are ambiguous works of collective art. Science requires the unambiguous so that nobody can project their pet agenda and no one can become an infallible leader. To equate the likes of Stephen Hawking with the likes of Jim Jones or "Doh" (the funky Nike wearing, castrating, hitch a ride on a comet guru) is simply preposterous in my view.

 

While it is possible for mystics to substitute Science for God, or the Gods (much like the South American native tribe who built large wood and straw models of the planes they saw flying overhead since as Arthur Clarke said "any technology sufficiently advanced appears as magic") this is only due to ignorance and ignorance is curable. Science welcomes such curing. Conversely, Cults thrive on an ignorant populace to support the priest class and/or revered leader. So my vote says Science is not a cult and cannot fit the criteria for most of the points of definition, whether practiced by believers or non-believers, but especially not by non-believers who reject the ignorance, group think, subjugation of the individual mind, repression of dissent, and simple lack of evidence or proof of basic tenets necessary and sufficient for cult status.

[sman]

No offense and nothing personal, sman, but I strongly disagree with virtually everything you've stated in the below quoted post.

 

Hello, enorbet. It's all good.

 

.... these things you've said assume the conclusion in your premises ie: Science is somehow equivalent to a cult. I'd like to check your premises and likely you should as well.

 

This is not my conclusion. Science is very different from religion. Atheism is very different from religion. I only mean to say that we should be wary of the ills we observe in religion in our other instituions. Science has erred in the past in this way. We are only human. We will have a tendency to push our version of the truth, and to think more highly of it because it's ours.

 

Be the way, my reference was from Samuel 23:

 

9 When David learned that Saul was plotting against him, he said to Abiathar the priest, "Bring the ephod." 10 David said, "O LORD, God of Israel, your servant has heard definitely that Saul plans to come to Keilah and destroy the town on account of me. 11 Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me to him? Will Saul come down, as your servant has heard? O LORD, God of Israel, tell your servant."

And the LORD said, "He will."

 

12 Again David asked, "Will the citizens of Keilah surrender me and my men to Saul?"

And the LORD said, "They will."

 

Whatever he's doing, it definitely yields a binary result. You'll notice, when David doesn't get the answer he wants, he re-words the question a little bit and tries it again, like a child with one of those magic 8 balls. Hilarious.