Is social science atheistic or unscientific?

[charles brough]

It seems to me that all science is atheistic except the way social sciences are interpreted. In other words, social theory is, I claim to show, unscientific.

 

But just what is social theory and is it important? I say it is at least as important as all the other sciences because it encompasses all our secular beliefs. It interprets what our history says, deals with our evolution, and interprets what religion is. It is what is taught in school and shapes our whole world-view and way-of-thinking, “Secular Humanism,” which our parents teach their children and what shapes public opinion, shapes the media, and drives world affairs.

 

I say it is not scientific because subliminal public pressure causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful. That is not easy to do and still make it seem scientific. For example, how do you define the function of religion without offending the faithful? You try to ignore it if you are a social theorist. When you have to refer to religions, you say they are all equal because that is the safe thing to do, but it is not accurate nor progressing scientific understanding.

 

In my book, “Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History,” I list twenty-one word-use stratagems social theorists subconsciously use in order to avoid conflict with religious beliefs. Real (atheistic) science begins by being aware of them enough to avoid using them in interpreting social science data. I also found it is necessary to build a glossary of key words in the social sciences and give each only one single, clear, usually functional, definition for each. That also helps avoid rationalizing. That way, I managed to figure out how social evolution occurs and why civilizations rise and fall. That is what atheistic science can do.

 

charles

the Atheistic Science Institute - home page   

[HydrogenBond]

Social science deal with how culture evolves, where it came from and where it is going. It also addresses tweaks to get to the future in the best way. If we do an historical investigation, religion has played a role in cultural evolution. Ignoring this data could make atheistic social science unscientific, since it could employ changes without using 20/20 hindsight. It could repeat the mistakes of the past. This is why it is required to touches bases with history or religion.

 

The analogy is music. Music has evolved over the centuries. If we don't learn from history we may come up with an old style, give it a new name, and call it the new state of the art. One litmus test of the value of social science theory and practice is the extent of the social mop that is needed to clean up behind the social scientists. Any mop shows lack of efficiency. Even if it looks fancy if is creates a lot of added social cost it is 3-stooges science.

 

Let me give a simple example. Gluttony was a sin within some mainstream religions. The atheist social scientists got rid of the sin connection. Now there is an obesity problem. It has to do with following impulse and no vehicle to help with will power. The social mop requires expensive medical procedures, specialty foods, diets, health clubs, and technologies. People pigged out in the past, too, so this is not new. The minimum mop used an internal will power technique which nipped the impulse in the bud. The atheist look for a genetic link or medicines to mop up. Nobody is at fault, since will power is not important to atheist social policy.

[charles brough]

I think it might help if we distinguish between social science and social theory. I would consider archeology, history, anthropology, linguistics, etc. as sciences in that the accumulate data that we need in order to understand ourselves and the world around us. Social theory is how that data is interpreted. I regard social scientists and their work as being objective and real science. Social theory, that is, how their data is interpreted, is another matter.

[HydrogenBond]

I agree with your distinction. I also believe social scientists are trying to nail down the facts. The social theorists are shaping the future with that. There are many factors that shape the social theorists. Religion is one thing. Atheism is another. There is politics as well as economics. The last may be one of the strongest, since it means money in the pocket. That means a new fad or some novelty item to create market share.

 

Let me show you, what I see. Atheism does not believe in God. To the atheist the entire religious thing is suspect. What that is extrapolated too is, if religion says it, it must be wrong. So we will do the opposite.

 

I showed the example; gluttony was a sin. To the atheist, sin belongs to religion and does not enter their equation. So, if you wish to eat extra it is not a sin, but can affect health. But then science works under the politically correct assumption obesity is nobody's fault, except maybe because of the free market who sells the fast food. Beyond that science is funneled to find causes outside of free will and choice, such as genetics.

 

I have in the past, discussed obesity from the angle of an energy balance between input and output. It is that simple, since beyond this will create perpetual motion. That is not a weighted argument, under the political science. The reason is, it shifts the discussion back to old fashion will power and self awareness, which was helped with the gluttony-sin connection. The atheist social theorist will fight this, since it shift back to religious common sense. It has to be someone else's fault so resolution will only occur if someone else gives you a diet, trains you at the gym, point out the green food, come up with the magic pill, etc. It is based on moving the herd back and forth between the latest social fads.

[charles brough]

HYDROGENBOND, I had a difficult time figuring out what you meant in your last two posts. I still cannot figure out what you mean by a social science mop. It would seem you are saying that social scientists clean up after themselves. There is rationalizing going on and that is a more accurate way to say it if that is, indeed, what you mean.

 

However, when you refer to atheists doing the opposite of what Christianity, for example, teaches because it teaches it, you make a statement that is not very accurate. Atheists know that killing, envy, lies, etc are also unchristian because of being in the Ten Commandments, but that does not mean we atheists kill, lie, covet, etc. more than others. In other words, we really do not try to do the opposite of what religions say. It is an interesting theory you came up with, but it's the "miracle" stuff that puts bothers us.

 

By the way, I have always been thin as well as my brothers, and daughters, all of whom are Free Thinkers. I know of fat Baptists. . . And even tho killing is a "sin" I have never killed anyone yet (but of course, there are times when I woul like to!) :)

[pamela]

Hydro, you gluttony theory seems a little diluted.....

Obesity is not about will power and being a pig, there are many causes that contribute to this condition. Thyroid problems, medications, depression, and not being able to afford good food that lends to eating cheap garbage, all puts on weight.

I think it not fair to say, that will power is not important to atheistic social policy-what do you base that statement upon?

Will power has everything to do with choice and has no bearing on religion or non

[HydrogenBond]

Religion is based on faith in things that can not be proven with science. That is the basis of faith; things unseen. Although this mythological aspect of religion is not scientific, this does not mean some of their techniques, using this state of mind, can not lead to positive results in a science sense.

 

I used the example of gluttony=sin. I am not saying this is true or scientific. But if we work under this assumption, the composite effect of faith in the unproven plus sin, creates a constant self awareness when one eats. The atheist may not be able to see this. For the religious, big-brother is always watching, so one is self conscious. Maybe this is not real, but it does lead to more self control over appetite. Just having an external social censor works, until you can get alone. A religious censor is there when you are alone. The constant self awareness and the need to control impulse is more perpetual with such a system. Religion was the beginning of will power apart from blind impulse or the ingenuity to hiding and use blind impulse so the social censor could not see. You can train a dog with a social censor. But once the owner leaves, the dog is a dog. Religion adds extra so when the owner is away, he is still thinking.

 

In modern time, over weight is getting more common and has been proven to lead to various medical conditions. The gluttony=sin angle, although irrational, was a means that led to be healthier ends. It may cause other psychological affects, being too self aware of natural appetite, but the sin was targeted to improve health by making people self aware of impulsive eating behavior.

 

Weight gain follows a simple energy equation. Input - output = accumulation. One can not gain weight as energy value, unless energy value is inputted. If this could occur that would be perpetual motion. There are genetic factors that affect how the body burns its fuel and the way it stores extra energy. But there needs to be input to create accumulation. The gluttony=sin targeted the input, but did not take into consideration genetic conditions that can affect energy output and accumulation. It was not a perfect system but led to less bulk affect within the population as a whole.

[pamela]

Hydro, then wouldn't will power equate to fear based upon what you just typed?

Being afraid of the consequences of sin by means of gluttony, would prevent some weight gain. Fear can be a motivator, but is probably not the best choice.That type of fear and motivation can lead to self loathing, depression and overwhelming guilt. Not very healthy....and if i felt that way, would be driven to consume vast quantities of chocolate;)

[charles brough]

Religion is based on faith in things that can not be proven with science. That is the basis of faith; things unseen. Although this mythological aspect of religion is not scientific, this does not mean some of their techniques, using this state of mind, can not lead to positive results in a science sense.

 

I used the example of gluttony=sin. I am not saying this is true or scientific. But if we work under this assumption, the composite effect of faith in the unproven plus sin, creates a constant self awareness when one eats. The atheist may not be able to see this. For the religious, big-brother is always watching, so one is self conscious. Maybe this is not real, but it does lead to more self control over appetite. Just having an external social censor works, until you can get alone. A religious censor is there when you are alone. The constant self awareness and the need to control impulse is more perpetual with such a system. Religion was the beginning of will power apart from blind impulse or the ingenuity to hiding and use blind impulse so the social censor could not see. You can train a dog with a social censor. But once the owner leaves, the dog is a dog. Religion adds extra so when the owner is away, he is still thinking.

 

In modern time, over weight is getting more common and has been proven to lead to various medical conditions. The gluttony=sin angle, although irrational, was a means that led to be healthier ends. It may cause other psychological affects, being too self aware of natural appetite, but the sin was targeted to improve health by making people self aware of impulsive eating behavior.

 

Weight gain follows a simple energy equation. Input - output = accumulation. One can not gain weight as energy value, unless energy value is inputted. If this could occur that would be perpetual motion. There are genetic factors that affect how the body burns its fuel and the way it stores extra energy. But there needs to be input to create accumulation. The gluttony=sin targeted the input, but did not take into consideration genetic conditions that can affect energy output and accumulation. It was not a perfect system but led to less bulk affect within the population as a whole.

You have an interesting theory, HydrogenBond, but I am under the impression that there are at least as many fat people in Southern churches as there are among Free Thinkers. I suspect the overly religious see no connection between their excessive weight and "gluttony." You know how annorexics think.

 

I propose still another theory: it has been shown in animal experiments that stress cause weight gain. Our society is filled with stress because we are over-crowded on this planet. Overcrowding in animals results in the exhaustion of the adrenal glands. It also causes depression (in us) and even a collapse in behavior which, in our case, can be called "social problems."

[HydrogenBond]

I propose still another theory: it has been shown in animal experiments that stress cause weight gain. Our society is filled with stress because we are over-crowded on this planet. Overcrowding in animals results in the exhaustion of the adrenal glands. It also causes depression (in us) and even a collapse in behavior which, in our case, can be called "social problems."

 

That is a reasonable theory. The question is, what changed. Over crowding is actually do to science and technology, allowing higher population density. As far as I am concerned, this is useful progress, but something closer to atheism fixed one problem and created another. There was short term progress leading to new long term problems. Now we need a social mop to clean up the mess.

 

The process is almost getting mud on your hands, as the social scientist cultivate within the atheist garden of science, which is very nicely done. You go inside the house to clean that off your hands, but mess up the sink. Now we need to clean that mud off, but in doing so spray water everywhere with the sink shower. Then you walk in the water that fell on the floor to make foot prints on the floor. While cleaning that up the bucket gets tipped over. Before long one forgets the muddy hands was the original cause, since one is now using towels to dry the rug. If there was enough fore-thought maybe the outside hose would have been a better way to clean off the hands.

[charles brough]

Over crowding is actually do to science and technology, allowing higher population density. As far as I am concerned, this is useful progress, but something closer to atheism fixed one problem and created another. There was short term progress leading to new long term problems. Now we need a social mop to clean up the mess.

 

The process is almost getting mud on your hands, as the social scientist cultivate within the atheist garden of science, which is very nicely done. You go inside the house to clean that off your hands, but mess up the sink. Now we need to clean that mud off, but in doing so spray water everywhere with the sink shower. Then you walk in the water that fell on the floor to make foot prints on the floor. While cleaning that up the bucket gets tipped over. Before long one forgets the muddy hands was the original cause, since one is now using towels to dry the rug. If there was enough fore-thought maybe the outside hose would have been a better way to clean off the hands.

Now I see what you mean. It is good to see something else who recognizes even the problem.

 

Here below is what I have been working on:

 

This time, civilization will not be able to experience quite the same social evolutionary process as in the past. When past civilizations experienced religious reaction and decline, there was always room for another new civilization to arise and find its place in the world. When the level of stress became so excessive in the old society, a new WV brought about a new society and civilization. Now, however, we have no room left for even two such separate civilizations here on Earth. There is only room for one, and it is in decline.

 

We do not need to ever run out of space, however. Unlike the rest of the biological world, we have the whole universe to expand into---if we can do it in time. But we do not have enough time. We lack both the time, the resources (such as energy), and the intense popular focus needed in order to build the colonies we would need to house what would be, by then, our even more excessive population.

 

All this is ominous. We have finally over-crowded the mainstream. For all practical purposes, we have to now see ourselves as having run out of room. Like all biological organisms, there is an ultimate limit to human numbers as long as the space is also limited. The maximum number we can sustain before sliding down the bell curve is not set by the amount of food we can produce nor how many people we can stack up in tall apartment or condominium buildings. It is determined by the amount of stress we can endure. The more our numbers expand while our WV systems continue to divide us, the more stress accumulates because the Earth's limited space now restricts the number of social organisms it can support to, in our modern world, only one! In the mammalian world, species that are not being culled by predators---such as we---ultimately experience stress reaching such levels that the species either experiences killing rates of adrenal gland exhaustion and/or experience a “social-problem” behavioral crisis. In both cases, what follows is a population kill off or collapse. We face with the prospect of a biological-type population crash.

 

Since mankind learned to speak, he has had occasion to think of not just our beginning but, as well, our end. In the last 2,000 years alone, there have been hundreds of predictions of “The End Times.” Obviously, of course, all were wrong. But does that really mean it won't happen? We are a biological entities or organisms. It is unrealistic to see us as separate us from the nature that we evolved with.

 

How big a crash in numbers might we expect? When we consider that we presently have some 15,000 nuclear bombs and that our air travel connects to every part of the globe makes us so vulnerable to a new form of plague that we could lose over a third of our numbers---two to three billion people---in just a few weeks. Nuclear radiation and “a nuclear winter” could take an even larger toll. The fact that all previous predictions of an “End Times” were wrong is no indication we are not now approaching a very real and catastrophic one, and the closer we approach it, the more stress we can expect.

 

Both militant Christians and Muslims, believe an End Times world nuclear, chemical and/or biological war would be followed by a paradise of bliss and righteousness either in "the next world" or in “God's Kingdom on Earth.” According to their scriptures, we need to be destroyed to be “saved.” With a reactionary trend in place and the Religious Right in increasing control---after the current liberal counter-reaction---the vast remainder of the world would have leaders who were increasingly inclined to see themselves as “the hand of God” and, thus, increasingly inclined to work to bring it about. At least, they would have a conflict of interest and, hence, lack the normal motivation to prevent it. There is no scriptural commitment to the very survival of the human race by the more militant believers of any of the old “spirit”-based WV systems, and everything that is not in their old Scriptures is merely the “profane.”

 

In Ancient Rome, stress levels evidently rose to such levels that people wanted to “leave the world” and see the rich left behind to burn in hell.” It was largely for that reason that they converted to Christianity. If there is no new and advanced WV system to adopt, stress levels in those who are not the militant believers would keep rising until people would become obsessed with death and want to get it over with in the same way as with the Romans. Stress would build up into a sort-of “death-wish” because we could see no escape. Suicide rates would not rise alone but with a general, widespread wish to end it all.

 

Yet, neither the academics, the public media, or public opinion can officially, openly, or even consciously acknowledge this threat. To even explore this subject would be antagonistic to both secular and religious beliefs. In the same way, the international deterioration in behavior, or the Antagonistic-Retaliatory partnership process, cannot be recognized in either current history or in political science references. The secular system's very survival depends upon minimizing conflict between the religious systems. Academically, “the Clash of Civilizations” cannot happen. Acknowledging that such conflict is growing would be to admit the secular system is failing, something that would be suicidal for the leadership of the secular society.

[HydrogenBond]

The movement toward critical mass is not just a function of physical resources but also subjectivity stemming from cultural influences.

 

Let me give an example. In terms of physical things and resource requirement, the average poor person in America has more that the lower middle class did 50 years ago. Nobody had a computer, three TVs, $100 sneakers, cell phones, energy usage, etc. fifty years ago. Those people didn't feel exactly poor. If you were to transport the lower middle class of 50 years ago, forward in time, what they subjectively felt was a descent living, would now feel subjectively different. To get the same feeling, they now need to use much more resources. Relative to the earth's resources this subjectivity requires we use resources at a faster rate.

 

Theoretically, if you could make a person feel happy with a piece of string, the amount of resources required is much lower and the earth could support more people much longer. But if cultural philosophy needs to maximize external resource requirement to achieve the same level of subjective happiness, then the population has to be lower or else the resources are used up too quickly.

 

If you look at China, which has lasted the longest of all civilizations and also has the most people, it was never an extroverted culture with a high material requirement. It is more introspective with subjectivity needing to be satisfied in other ways. This does not subjectively feel right to cultures who have a higher subjective resource requirement. It makes like sense.

 

One way culture deals material requirement in a way to lower resource requirement is with prestige affects. Instead of 10 pairs of shoes to feel happy, one can buy one designer pair of shoes. This one pair is as good as ten pairs, but only uses 1/10 the resources. There is something good to be said about the subjectivity of snobbery If people didn't buy into that social subjectivity, but based subjectivity the amount of resources, they would buy 10 pairs of cheap shoes. Objectively you get more but not subjectively.

 

That is part of the trick for helping poor countries. We can increase the standard of living and subjectively make people feel better off with less resource requirement. In other words, it is often possible to make people feel better off just by socially giving more subjective weight in a way that is not as resource intensive. For example, the farmer with the stick will feel rich with a shovel, unless we make a big deal and say the tractor is better. If we do that, he now needs a tractor to be happy. Where the prestige affect comes in is a designer shovel affect, that can make you feel better, almost like the tractor. This is not being cheap, but it addresses how so you increase the standard of living with least resources needed to make people feel happier.

 

Do atheism and religion have different resource requirements in terms of the happiness subjectivity within the philosophy?

[TIC]

It seems to me that all science is atheistic except the way social sciences are interpreted. In other words, social theory is, I claim to show, unscientific.

 

But just what is social theory and is it important? I say it is at least as important as all the other sciences because it encompasses all our secular beliefs. It interprets what our history says, deals with our evolution, and interprets what religion is. It is what is taught in school and shapes our whole world-view and way-of-thinking, “Secular Humanism,” which our parents teach their children and what shapes public opinion, shapes the media, and drives world affairs.

 

I say it is not scientific because subliminal public pressure causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful. That is not easy to do and still make it seem scientific. For example, how do you define the function of religion without offending the faithful? You try to ignore it if you are a social theorist. When you have to refer to religions, you say they are all equal because that is the safe thing to do, but it is not accurate nor progressing scientific understanding.

 

In my book, “Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History,” I list twenty-one word-use stratagems social theorists subconsciously use in order to avoid conflict with religious beliefs. Real (atheistic) science begins by being aware of them enough to avoid using them in interpreting social science data. I also found it is necessary to build a glossary of key words in the social sciences and give each only one single, clear, usually functional, definition for each. That also helps avoid rationalizing. That way, I managed to figure out how social evolution occurs and why civilizations rise and fall. That is what atheistic science can do.

 

charles

the Atheistic Science Institute - home page* *

 

Is this a desparate ad for your book (that is not selling well) or are you now questioning what you have written and unsure?

[charles brough]

The movement toward critical mass is not just a function of physical resources but also subjectivity stemming from cultural influences.

Do atheism and religion have different resource requirements in terms of the happiness subjectivity within the philosophy?

I really don't know what to think of your posts! I would have to agree with what you wrote, but does it really get us anywhere? What have we gained from seeing it that way? Myself, I don't think a people are ever more or less "happy." We have to have the bad to appreciate the good. The pursuit of happiness ideal in Secular Humanism is not a good ideal since what we should, instead, focus on is working together to unite the world so we can deal with the over-population pressing down on our diminishing resources.

 

It seems that the question is: "are you happier for believing in God or not believing in God?." My response is that there is no difference for atheists in general. Myself, I have been fortunate to have had a very unusual and interesting life.

[Michaelangelica]

It seems to me that all science is atheistic except the way social sciences are interpreted. In other words, social theory is, I claim to show, unscientific.

 

But just what is social theory and is it important? I say it is at least as important as all the other sciences because it encompasses all our secular beliefs. It interprets what our history says, deals with our evolution, and interprets what religion is. It is what is taught in school and shapes our whole world-view and way-of-thinking, “Secular Humanism,” which our parents teach their children and what shapes public opinion, shapes the media, and drives world affairs.

 

I say it is not scientific because subliminal public pressure causes social theorists to interpret social science data in ways that are the least offensive to the faithful. That is not easy to do and still make it seem scientific. For example, how do you define the function of religion without offending the faithful? You try to ignore it if you are a social theorist. When you have to refer to religions, you say they are all equal because that is the safe thing to do, but it is not accurate nor progressing scientific understanding.

 

In my book, “Destiny and Civilization, the Evolutionary Explanation of Religion and History,” I list twenty-one word-use stratagems social theorists subconsciously use in order to avoid conflict with religious beliefs. Real (atheistic) science begins by being aware of them enough to avoid using them in interpreting social science data. I also found it is necessary to build a glossary of key words in the social sciences and give each only one single, clear, usually functional, definition for each. That also helps avoid rationalizing. That way, I managed to figure out how social evolution occurs and why civilizations rise and fall. That is what atheistic science can do.

 

charles

the Atheistic Science Institute - home page* *

 

Very interesting Charles

I guess all inquiry happens in a social, historical and should I say "fashionable" context- even your own.

The very questions we ask are fuelled by social debate, the media and majority concerns (and then money follows for research).

 

Are social scientists becoming philosophers-rather than scientists- do you think?

 

While you are defining things would you like to have ago at "postmodernism, post-structuralism or social constructionism in health" for a student in another thread in this forum?

[charles brough]

Very interesting Charles

I guess all inquiry happens in a social, historical and should I say "fashionable" context- even your own.

The very questions we ask are fuelled by social debate, the media and majority concerns (and then money follows for research).

 

Are social scientists becoming philosophers-rather than scientists- do you think?

 

While you are defining things would you like to have ago at "postmodernism, post-structuralism or social constructionism in health" for a student in another thread in this forum?

 

Michaelangelica, it seems to me social scientists are not philosophers. Social scientists, to me, are real scientists, ones who collect historical, archeological, anthropological and other data. It is the social theorists who interpret it and they rationalize. Instead of philosophers, I think they liken to the Confusian literatti of the early last century who thought they understood everything and existed as a very presitiguous class.

 

I won't dare try to help with postmodernism, post-structuralism or social constructionism in health" because I do not use the terms and are not very familiar with them. Perhaps they are social philosophy!

[Miranda]

Michaelangelica, it seems to me social scientists are not philosophers. Social scientists, to me, are real scientists, ones who collect historical, archeological, anthropological and other data. It is the social theorists who interpret it and they rationalize.

Are social scientists becoming philosophers-rather than scientists- do you think?

 

Why are we trying to separate philosophy and science here?

The sciences began with philosophical inquiry. Scientific findings would be essentially useless if separated from philosophical or theoretical interpretation.