Any categorization of humans or society is bound to be an oversimplification. No doubt about that. Humans are very complex and society and its development is very complex. But that does not mean we don't have any categorizations or that we should not.
Yes, but the spectrum of humanity is vast, and so any categorisation needs to be done carefully.
The categorization I have given is a very simple and natural categorization based on the biological stages we go through. It is something we can observe in our day to day lives.
Except that the traits you are talking about aren't linked to those stages of biological development particularly strongly. You are likening modes of thought that develop in childhood and remain through the rest of our lives - a preponderence for logic or sentiment, say - with 'lesser' and 'greater' maturity, which is nonsense. There are childish people with a 'scientific' bent as much as there are childish people with an 'emotional' bent, even whilst the majority of childish people maintain varying degrees of balance between the two.
I am also talking about how depending on our social conditions, we can have a certain mental make up beyond the biological stages.
There are a number of cultural, racial, regional and other biases that influence to what degree we emphasise processional or intuitive thinking, I'd agree, but I don't see how your claim that one is 'wiser' than the other in any way appreciates that.
If social conditions are very rigid and religious rules are strict, people would continue to be in the first stage all their lives (not in all matters but in many matters).
And yet, from exactly those conditions, social conditions emerge - quickly or slowly in different examples - which are freer, and vice versa. Society imprints itself on the individuals, but at the same time society is the collective expression of those individuals - change can be fast or slow, but society is constantly changing.
If society is liberal, people will grow to the second stage and remain there most of their lives. Similarly, if social conditions are such that the people are exposed to many different types of ideas and life styles...they and their views might mature faster.
Perhaps - or, perhaps, threatened by the cacophony, they retreat into parallel sub-cultures with inevitable tensions. Or, most likely, various individuals within a given society exhibit various balances of those traits.
Many westerners and scientists, in my view are still in the second stage of habitual skepticism, self pride and denigration of others who believe outside the remit of science. The fact that you keep asking for evidence is enough to show that scientists do not 'pass no comment'. They do pass comments and they do pass judgments.
Asking you to validate your claim is not 'passing judgment', it's looking for a rationale. Fundamentally my problem is this ranking system you have, whereby rational thought is somehow 'lesser', whilst accepting nonsense that not only has no explanation, but has no evidence to support the fact that it actually happens at all is somehow 'wisdom'. Wisdom comes from knowing that different people will have different ideas, and that whilst some of them are wrong that doesn't make them 'bad' or 'less' as people.
I am talking about respect for the people instead of disregard and mockery of their faith.
What makes you think you can't do both? I respect people, I respect their right to a religious belief, I work on a live and let live basis. People who come to this board do so to talk about their ideas, and if those ideas are ridiculous I'll point that out. I don't do that randomly in the street, but I do get accosted by preachers whilst I'm shopping, or even at home.
Scientists are under the mistaken impression that they actually know all about religion and faith and why they exist.
I think you are conflating 'scientists' and 'atheists' - whilst there is quite a degree of cross-over, they aren't one and the same. Most scientists - as scientists, at least - don't have much of an opinion on religion at all, much as most fishermen don't, as fishermen, have a position on the bombing of Syria - it's not part of that remit.
Merely as people, of course, they have opinions, and the same tendency towards processional, logical thought that leads them to science tends to lead them away from the instinctive thinking patterns that lead to religious belief and pseudoscience. Science does have an interest in those mechanisms of thinking, yes, and which thought methods and patterns tend towards belief and non-belief, but that's a statement on the people, not on the existence or non-existence of any gods.
They have their own evolutionary, social and psychological explanations and believe they have it all tied up so that they can now sit back smug and mock at the people and their laughable faith. This is what I am questioning.
How people convey information isn't necessarily a judgment on the veracity of that information. For every smug atheist I could probably call out a half-dozen judgmental believers who presume that atheists are either Satanists or fundamentally immoral. Entrenched positions don't help anyone, and that lack of respect for positions comes from both sides.
You seem to be trying to split believers into 'advanced' and 'primitive' either side of 'sciency types', rather than appreciating there are good and bad communicators, and respectful and disrespectful people on both sides of that divide.
Science (scientists) has not matured enough to integrate all human experiences and values into its total world view.
I disagree. Science has a place for all world-views, it just doesn't presume there's validity to all of the beliefs that are part of those.
It still has this 'them and us' attitude which creates this huge gap between science people and the non science people. This was my point.
And my point is that whilst there are some scientists with a 'them and us' mentality - to a degree I'm one of them - there are just as many religious/mystic people with a 'them and us' mentality, and there are 'accommodationists' on both sides as well.
Suitable methodology will follow once the attitude is right. Where there is a will there is a way!
If you have to have a particular frame of mind for your methodology to work, I question your methodology. A methodology is only reliable if it's independent of the person applying it. Otherwise you don't get 'truth' you get 'true for me'.
O.
