Logical Positivist? I used to hold onto logical positivism,
mostly as I'd watched every Star Trek and other shows of the
future that informed me that a utopia was possible if only we
get rid of [x], [y], and [z]. Part of me still wants to believe
it but unless you're willing for the human race to go through
genetic manipulation to improve our stock (which was called
eugenics in earlier years and was a belief that was strong in
the logical positivist movement), I don't see any reason people
wouldn't continue being people with flaws amplified through
political power and such. Something like the United Nations does
make the idea of a Utopian cooperation seem possible though, so
I'm still hopeful, - but I don't see anything particular in the
STEM fields that would render our species any different than it
is now in the future, unless there are specific programs of
change you have in mind perhaps. If there are, I'd like to know
what they are. Maybe you'll give me something to root for. But
Scientific battles amplified through political power would lead
to the same kinds of issues that politics have caused through
the centuries. I see no reason why we'd change as a species.
Maybe a better detante situation? But, as it stands, to simply
say "highly unlikely" is an article of faith and a statement of
dogma unless shown otherwise. I can't change my beliefs based
upon your faith and dogma. I need more. --- Religions are
ideological movements. There are ideological movements within
the sciences as well. People choose sides. Argue. Debate.
Religion-is-cause-of-all-human-ills is a very narrow, warped
view of history that ignores much. Think how absurd your
position (which is the position of millions and it is the taught
position in schools - the status quo worldview) really is?
"Religion caused everything bad. We don't know what a world is
like without bad things because there has always been religion.
We should try removing religion to how many of the bad things go
away. Since religion caused everything bad, maybe if we remove
all religion, all of the bad things will go away." --- We have
tried the same thing about: "What if we remove all land
ownership?" "What if we remove all hierarchies? They're the
cause of bad things." "What if we removed all politics?" etc.
-- Soviet Russia tried it. French Revolution tried it. Both of
them were very iconoclastic in a not too dissimilar way. China
is trying it, although they made SOME concessions to the State
to regulate a few, as long as they line up with State policies.
Perhaps China's model would work? I don't know. Maybe they're
right. - These social experiments have and are already being
tried. -- The conflict is more modern than that,- it's mostly
20th century in origin - the forces of
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism - a 20th century
movement - and it's PRIMARILY
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War -
not thousands of years of conflict. It's a modern war with
modern ideological origin of modern times, based upon attempts
to "start from scratch" from texts, which forms it into a
separate movement from the historical continuity within each of
the cultures. -- I really like those quotes from Richard Pipes.
Yes, that is a good rule of thumb. A lot of historical
revisionism took place in the 19th century, which we've
inherited and untangling the messes is difficult. --- They still
strike me as warring cultures rather than religions though. How
do you separate them? Lines of religion and lines of geography
are often one and the same. Lines of political leadership and
lines of religion also correlate strongly. I still don't see
religion as the cause but rather power. -- Thank you for the
nod about tribalism although to say that "religion is born of
politics".... I'm having a little trouble swallowing that
perspective. It's a novel concept to me. I'm willing to listen
though. I see religions as arising as powerful forces through
the use of political power - but not borne of politics. The
seeds of religion don't seem born of politics but rather,
politics give them armies and to me, they remain political
armies who take advantage of symbolism and religious loyalty to
gain the loyalty of the people: the religion turned into a force
for nationalism. But ANY ideology can be used as a force for
nationalism, not just religion. See: atheistic revolutions. Any
ideology will work if enough people happen to already be a part
of it. So to me, the readings of history seem to favor seeing
the politics of a region as separate from the religion of the
region, and the rulers making political decision that favor the
dominant religion of the people at the time. --- This is also
why I can easily imagine wars fought over scientific
disagreements. Insert political power. That's all that's
required. --- That is how the sciences are supposed to work,
yes. In practice, dogma becomes embedded within the sciences
just as much as anywhere and hard to extract. Absolutism is how
religions are supposed to work, yes. In practice, skepticism
(among many other reasons) leads to division and separation and
the forming of factions. Neither the sciences nor religion exist
without the people, as nice as ideologies may sound on paper..
-- Also, a demand for skepticism becomes absolutism. Just
saying. --- Well, eugenics isn't dead. It's been transformed
however utilizing DNA and things that are socially acceptable
now that were not once. I'm not necessarily against it, mind you
if it's done right, but eugenics isn't dead so long as one is
trying to make what they consider a better future human race
through the use of changing the genetic makeup of the species.
--- there's definitely a promise of paradise within the culture
of the sciences. Why is anyone pursuing it? Why the "search for
answer?" What is it hoping to bring? I'm pro-science and I
believe that the sciences are the best ways at present to make a
better tomorrow - in short - "lead to a utopia" - a paradise.
But I also recognize the strong religious component within the
cult of the sciences, lofty talk of scientific ideals strikes me
as no different from lofty talk of religious ideals in days of
old. -- Those social movements had their time, yes. But much of
the ideology still carries on. Look at the various "wars on
poverty" around the world. It can be argued that the very tying
in of abortion to economics is a form of eugenics. If there are
fewer people born into poor families, that eliminates poverty.
That also eliminates many genetic lines. I'm not anti-abortion
mind you; I'm pro-choice. But the element is there. -- We have
to view our OWN culture with the same skepticism that we might
view a culture of the past. -- Not yet. Also, there is a HUGE
influx of non-intellectuals within both scientism and atheism.
Just look at forums and memes. It's all over the place. There's
a change in culture happening and it's been interesting to
witness. --- In my lifetime, I'm witnessed the birth of a set
of new religious movements - interesting for the force with
which they disavow the religiousity - and it's been quite
fascinating. ---
References
Visible links
1.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FZionism&h=tAQFf9Ytd
2.
https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F1948_Arab%25E2%2580%2593Israeli_War&h=8AQG6945g
