Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

[lightgigantic]

Nope its either the post or the ale - sorry

seems like you are saying that people who are critical of religion describe environmentalism, science, atheism as akin to a religion -I've never heard them do that.

The only people I have heard do that are those most unsophisticated of theists - you know - the fundie spacecadets

well I just provided you with a link that suggests otherwise .... and as far as I am aware Weizenbaum is not big on the christian circuit ....
(exactly how much have you drunk?)

 

[iceaura]

well I just provided you with a link that suggests otherwise .... and as far as I am aware Weizenbaum is not big on the christian circuit ....

Weizenbaum doesn't strike me as someone who spends much time criticizing religion.

His thesis seems to be that science has become a degenerate religion, and is adopting the computer as its idol.

Which is two kinds of goofy, to start with - he seems to have little contact with field research in the physical sciences, and to be projecting from some oddly perceived sociological properties of the MIT artificial intelligence crowd to "science" in general. Field biologists, for example, are in no danger of idolizing their computers.

I have heard philosophers of science debate the question of whether the computer investigations Weizenbaum is using as examples of all of science are even "science" at all, properly speaking (the tendency is to conclude that they are, but with unique features).

I tend to agree, "computer science" is a science despite including the word "science" in its name - normally a sign that something is not a science. But if it comes to having to call modern science a religion if we include the more mystical AI aggrandizements as a subfield of it, the better response would be to re-categorize the AI.

 

[lightgigantic]

Weizenbaum doesn't strike me as someone who spends much time criticizing religion.

His thesis seems to be that science has become a degenerate religion, and is adopting the computer as its idol.

Which is two kinds of goofy, to start with - he seems to have little contact with field research in the physical sciences, and to be projecting from some oddly perceived sociological properties of the MIT artificial intelligence crowd to "science" in general. Field biologists, for example, are in no danger of idolizing their computers.

he is talking about other issues too -like mythology and a hierarchy.

I have heard philosophers of science debate the question of whether the computer investigations Weizenbaum is using as examples of all of science are even "science" at all, properly speaking (the tendency is to conclude that they are, but with unique features).

I tend to agree, "computer science" is a science despite including the word "science" in its name - normally a sign that something is not a science. But if it comes to having to call modern science a religion if we include the more mystical AI aggrandizements as a subfield of it, the better response would be to re-categorize the AI.

Maybe you should read the article linked

 

[ronan]

I think this quotation from a famous scientist (who was a Christian believer) fit well with the topic of the thread:

The cornerstone of science’s own structure [is] the direct perception by consciousness of the existence of
external reality. As Einstein has said, you could not be a scientist if you did not know that the external world existed in reality; but that knowledge is not gained by any process of reasonning. It is a direct perception and therefore in its nature akin to what we call Faith. It is a metaphysical belief. Now that is something which the skeptic questions in regard to religion; but it is the same in
regard to science.

Planck, M. (1931) Where is Science Going?, Ox Bow Press: Woodbridge, CT p. 218

it is being discussed in another thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81139

 

[iceaura]

he is talking about other issues too -like mythology and a hierarchy.

Particular forms of which he has projected unto all of science from his odd take on his odd corner of it, and then mistaken for symptoms of religion.

Maybe you should read the article linked

I did. For the third or fourth time in my apparently empty life.

Am I supposed to respect it? Find relevance in it ? What ? Beyond possibly a few AI nutjobs I have never heard from, who in real science regards the invention of AI and its embodiment in a computer as the pinnacle and justifying achievement of the human species ? And what does that have to do with religion ?

I think this quotation from a famous scientist (who was a Christian believer) fit well with the topic of the thread:

It does, actually: with a couple more examples of how scientists out of their field are just ordinary goofballs, we have a prayer of putting the "science is a religion" assertion back in line with the others, and maybe get the discussion on a track of some kind.

 

[ronan]

iceaura, what the point of attacking the persons and not the arguments.

Please give argument if you want to deny that science relies on a belief of the existence of a unconscious reality behind our senses while they in fact only study what is perceivable.
and that science believe in the power of induction.

I agree science predict events (in a certain extent) and build objects (in a certain extent) but if it did not it would not be followed by anyone and would not stand as a religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

Particular forms of which he has projected unto all of science from his odd take on his odd corner of it, and then mistaken for symptoms of religion.

you don't see any correlation between mechanistic theories of consciousness and AI/computer science?

I did. For the third or fourth time in my apparently empty life.

Am I supposed to respect it? Find relevance in it ? What ? Beyond possibly a few AI nutjobs I have never heard from, who in real science regards the invention of AI and its embodiment in a computer as the pinnacle and justifying achievement of the human species ?

You've never encountered an explanation of the mind drawn as being analogous to a computer?

And what does that have to do with religion ?

mythologies, hierarchies, etc

 

[iceaura]

you don't see any correlation between mechanistic theories of consciousness and AI/computer science?

I've never seen them justifiably projected unto all of science as a religion, no.

You've never encountered an explanation of the mind drawn as being analogous to a computer?

The brain, yes - and vice versa. I've also seen consciousness pictured as analogous to a movie screen. So ?

And what does that have to do with religion ?
”
mythologies, hierarchies, etc

So what does myth and hierarchy have to do with religion ? I mean aside from the fact that religions often incorporate myths and organize themselves using hierarchy, as human institutions tend to. Is the presence of myth and hierarchy supposed to indicate the presence of religion, somehow ? That's the only take I can fit into the article, but that seems a bit obtuse even for a computer scientist doing philosophy.

iceaura, what the point of attacking the persons and not the arguments.

When someone tries to argue from authority, they are including the person as part of the argument. And especially in a case like this, where there isn't much argument left after the person is subtracted, subtracting the person is step one.

 

[ronan]

When someone tries to argue from authority, they are including the person as part of the argument. And especially in a case like this, where there isn't much argument left after the person is subtracted, subtracting the person is step one.

At least give argument to why we should discard these persons,
just calling them ordinary goofballs is not enough. At least they have knowledge that most people don't have.

Please note that usually we quote someone not because of him/her but because of his/her quote. Then by respect we have to write his/her name as well.

 

[Zephyr]

I noticed a post the other day which gives a link to an article describing environmentalism as a religion

( http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=81170)

It seems that every fucking thing that Fundaligionsists don't like these days is being likened to a religion.

Atheism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Science - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Evolution - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Environmentalism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

Communism - Aaaaaargh Its a RELIGION!!!

I'm not certain why this is, is it because there is a certain brand of Fundaligionists who are just only able to see things in such simplistic terms?

Or is it because their authorities wish to scare their minions away from examining these concepts, and the easiest way to do this is to brand it with a "false religion" Label?

Any predictions as to the next thing that gets likened to a pseudo-religion?

What they mean is that people can become fundamentalists about any ideology. Christian fundamentalists, for example, believe every word of the bible is perfect and that it's the most important thing in their lives.

But people can just as easily become environmental fundamentalists ("human activity and technology is the source of all evil!") or communism fundamentalists ("Marx was a prophet!") This is like making environmentalism or communism your religion, and following that religion with fundamentalist fervour.

 

[stretched]

This religion debunked!

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

(http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734)

Were all gonna DIE! .... quick, pay HUGE tax on carbon emissions before you do...

 

[synthesizer-patel]

What they mean is that people can become fundamentalists about any ideology. Christian fundamentalists, for example, believe every word of the bible is perfect and that it's the most important thing in their lives.

But people can just as easily become environmental fundamentalists ("human activity and technology is the source of all evil!") or communism fundamentalists ("Marx was a prophet!") This is like making environmentalism or communism your religion, and following that religion with fundamentalist fervour.

Sure but no matter how mundane the subject matter might be, there will always be individuals who wax evangelical at the extreme end of the point of view - for example I'm sure those of us who have at some point worked in the computer industry have met that guy who is insanely and rabidly anti-microsoft, pro-linux or whatever - does he worship at the church of Torvalds?

The point I'm making is that if you have the mindset to think of everything from a religious perspective, then it's possible to view anything at all that one could have a point of view on as a religion.
And that's not only divisive and counter productive, its also a hairy sack of large fetid donkey bollocks.
Most marxists will pick and choose from marxist philosophy, interpret it in different ways, and disgree over any real-world implementation of it, and environmentalists have a similar broad-based spectrum of viewpoints within their ranks.
There's only one thing that's like religion - religion

 

[synthesizer-patel]

This religion debunked!

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

(http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734)

Were all gonna DIE! .... quick, pay HUGE tax on carbon emissions before you do...

Well only a third are ACTUAL scientists in a relevant field - secondly there doesn't appear to be any genuine verification of the signatory's credentials - so it could be even less - I could sign it saying I had a Phd in climatology, but I don't. Finally if these guys were actually conducting research in the field of climate change, then there would be a wealth of peer-review that debunks it - there isn't (there is some but not much) - so this is just an opinion peice and as such its of little intrinsic value.
I welcome research and discussion of its implications from both sides of argument - its what keeps science vital - but that's as far from a religious perspective as you can get.

 

[Zephyr]

Finally if these guys were actually conducting research in the field of climate change, then there would be a wealth of peer-review that debunks it - there isn't (there is some but not much) - so this is just an opinion peice and as such its of little intrinsic value.

They're being oppressed by the establishment! Just like the psychics and 9/11 truthers!