I'm sure I'm not mistaken.

[Hope]

And the problem with that is that - having guessed/arrived at a faith belief - there's no way to argue someone out of it as many of the threads here show.

I think the problem is rife on both sides of the debate.  Those who put all their faith in science are adamant that it has, or ultimately will have all the answers there are to be had.  Others will argue that that is no more (or less) guesswork than any theistic outlook, including scientists.

[wigginhall]

Do we? As I have mentioned before I seem to get by on a few rules of thumb, which were I to tart them up, I might call heuristics. Some of them when I get into the long dark Grenache-time of the soul seem pretty contradictory. Having a world view seems very exhausting.

Excellent.  I think I used to bandy the word 'world-view' around in my dismal adolescence, but then later I couldn't figure out what it is.  I suppose it connects with consistency and homogeneity?  Hmm.  Both very suspicious and unattractive traits in human beings, better in milk puddings.   

[L.A.]

Excellent.  I think I used to bandy the word 'world-view' around in my dismal adolescence, but then later I couldn't figure out what it is.  I suppose it connects with consistency and homogeneity?  Hmm.  Both very suspicious and unattractive traits in human beings, better in milk puddings.

The latest research on the mind confirms that we all have a 'model' of reality in our heads. The model is never perfect and will probably be slightly different even for people in the same society.

'World View' seems to be a reasonable way of informally describing it.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  Others will argue that that is no more (or less) guesswork than any theistic outlook, including scientists.

Science is a way of sorting out incorrect guesses from correct ones. All we need now is the theistic equivalent. Maybe you could address my last post on the "Appeal .." thread? The one where I asked how you turn claims of a resurrection into a factual resurrection.

[wigginhall]

Yes, exactly.  There is that famous film by Feynman, where he talks about guessing in science, but as Stephen Taylor just said, scientists compare their guesses with their observations.   To quote Feynman, if your guess disagrees with experiments (or experience), it's wrong.   

Hence, the famous question, how would you know you were wrong?   In my case, I knew I was wrong when I saw her rifling through my wallet.  This is a joke, not a guess.

[wigginhall]

The latest research on the mind confirms that we all have a 'model' of reality in our heads. The model is never perfect and will probably be slightly different even for people in the same society.

'World View' seems to be a reasonable way of informally describing it.

I thought a world-view was more philosophical than that, which sounds more like representation.    I would say that a world-view is an interpretation, not a representation.

[L.A.]

Science is a way of sorting out incorrect guesses from correct ones. All we need now is the theistic equivalent. Maybe you could address my last post on the "Appeal .." thread? The one where I asked how you turn claims of a resurrection into a factual resurrection.

I'm not sure that we can ever claim that science is 'correct' - we just create better models.

[ippy]

Not quite sure that you've explained the purpose of this thread very well, ippy.  Are you trying to tell us that nations that have high religiosity are always poor?


If so, why was Britain, at its richest, one of apparently (according to folk like yourself) high religiosity?  Why, on the other hand was a country like Albania so poor under an atheist regime?

India is very strongly Hindu - some 88% of the population when I last checked about 10 years ago.  Some of these folk are extremely wealthy, many of them are amongst the poorest the world knows.  I would suggest that the correlation between poverty and religiosity isn't necessarily as strong as you would like it to be.  At the same time, there is a distinct difference between religiosity and having a living faith.

Not quite sure that I need to explain.

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

I thought a world-view was more philosophical than that, which sounds more like representation.    I would say that a world-view is an interpretation, not a representation.

Surely at that level, it's just experienced? It has no active part to it. Note, I'm commenting in agreement with wigginhall.

[wigginhall]

Surely at that level, it's just experienced? It has no active part to it. Note, I'm commenting in agreement with wigginhall.

Yes, I was thinking about colour.   The representation of colour in the brain/mind is not part of a world-view, as far as I can see, but the cultural significance surrounding colour, is.

[Nearly Sane]

Given our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics, I'm don't think we can describe the world as being totally deterministic.

which is why I included randomness. Makes no difference.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, I was thinking about colour.   The representation of colour in the brain/mind is not part of a world-view, as far as I can see, but the cultural significance surrounding colour, is.

I can see world view in this sense having some meaning if, we use it as a shorthand for influences, but it seems at odds with the common use, which, as you say, has a philosophical meaning.



Of course, the very term, even when a simply passive experience, posits a consistency in view which surely isn't true between me this morning on team adolescents, and now on a lovely lively spliff.

[Nearly Sane]

Bizarrely combination of predictive text and the forum forbidding words has turned tram-a-dol into team adolescents

[wigginhall]

I can see world view in this sense having some meaning if, we use it as a shorthand for influences, but it seems at odds with the common use, which, as you say, has a philosophical meaning.



Of course, the very term, even when a simply passive experience, posits a consistency in view which surely isn't true between me this morning on team adolescents, and now on a lovely lively spliff.

Oh you bad boy.   Well, as I got older, I realized with a shock, that I am wildly inconsistent, and of course, as a sniveling and conformist adolescent, had covered this up.    For a while, I felt guilty/ashamed about this, and then thought, ah well, si jeunesse savait, si viellesse pouvait, or something.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I'm not sure that we can ever claim that science is 'correct' - we just create better models.

Agreed. That is a more accurate way of stating it.

[Sriram]

Not quite sure that you've explained the purpose of this thread very well, ippy.  Are you trying to tell us that nations that have high religiosity are always poor?


If so, why was Britain, at its richest, one of apparently (according to folk like yourself) high religiosity?  Why, on the other hand was a country like Albania so poor under an atheist regime?

India is very strongly Hindu - some 88% of the population when I last checked about 10 years ago.  Some of these folk are extremely wealthy, many of them are amongst the poorest the world knows.  I would suggest that the correlation between poverty and religiosity isn't necessarily as strong as you would like it to be.  At the same time, there is a distinct difference between religiosity and having a living faith.

I agree with you Hope.   

This is the oft repeated atheist view that religion and poverty are closely connected (directly proportional) .  And also that education and religion are   closely connected (inversely proportional).

This is just a way by which atheists choose to feel superior about themselves...(whenever they get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the religious).   

I would even say that the more educated and intelligent people are ......'spirituality' and the inner quest become inevitable. Truly intelligent people with a broader vision of life cannot be satisfied with the narrow 'reality' that science shows them.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with you Hope.   

This is the oft repeated atheist view that religion and poverty are closely connected (directly proportional) .  And also that education and religion are   closely connected (inversely proportional).

This is just a way by which atheists choose to feel superior about themselves...(whenever they get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the religious).   

I would even say that the more educated and intelligent people are ......'spirituality' and the inner quest become inevitable. Truly intelligent people with a broader vision of life cannot be satisfied with the narrow 'reality' that science shows them.

The Irony is strong with this one

[Gonnagle]

Dear Sriram,

I would even say that the more educated and intelligent people are ......'spirituality' and the inner quest become inevitable. Truly intelligent people with a broader vision of life cannot be satisfied with the narrow 'reality' that science shows them.

Narrow reality of of science Were you on cruise mode when you wrote that, this from the man who is constantly bringing us new insights into science, this from the man who shows us that science has just scratched the surface.

Science is, the study of everything, me, you, nature, the world, the Universe, everything!!

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

This is the oft repeated atheist view that religion and poverty are closely connected (directly proportional) .  And also that education and religion are   closely connected (inversely proportional).

This is just a way by which atheists choose to feel superior about themselves...(whenever they get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the religious).   

Not really - either they're correlative (or inversely correlative) or they're not. Causality of course is a different matter - you can't just assume that religion causes poverty, or that education causes atheism - but numbers are numbers regardless of the "superiority" or otherwise of those who reference them.

Perhaps more interesting is the USA - high religiosity and high wealth, usually thought of as an outlier as religiosity and poverty tend to go hand-in-hand elsewhere. Even within the US though, my sense at least is that there's less religion in the more affluent bits (east and west coast) and more of it in the poorer parts (deep south etc) so maybe the pattern holds there to an extent too.

[Sriram]

Dear Sriram,

Narrow reality of of science Were you on cruise mode when you wrote that, this from the man who is constantly bringing us new insights into science, this from the man who shows us that science has just scratched the surface.

Science is, the study of everything, me, you, nature, the world, the Universe, everything!!

Gonnagle.

Hi Gonnagle,

I am not saying anything new really. Science deals with a certain subset of reality. Its scope is defined that way. It cannot study everything and all aspects of reality.

But sometimes  science does go beyond its own self imposed limits and find something that is at the fringes of science and almost touching those aspects of reality that we call spiritual (for want of a better word).  That is what I try to highlight in my articles.

That is neither to denigrate science nor to extol it. I have no problems with science nor do I regard it as a panacea.

Cheers.

Sriram 

 

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Not really - either they're correlative (or inversely correlative) or they're not. Causality of course is a different matter - you can't just assume that religion causes poverty, or that education causes atheism - but numbers are numbers regardless of the "superiority" or otherwise of those who reference them.

Perhaps more interesting is the USA - high religiosity and high wealth, usually thought of as an outlier as religiosity and poverty tend to go hand-in-hand elsewhere. Even within the US though, my sense at least is that there's less religion in the more affluent bits (east and west coast) and more of it in the poorer parts (deep south etc) so maybe the pattern holds there to an extent too.

First of all...religion is a very loose term. It can range from simple forms of worship to complex rituals, philosophy and mysticism.   We cannot lump them all together.

It is possible that certain  religious practices are connected with education and wealth, but certain other aspects need not be so connected.  Spirituality for example, can be very philosophical and intellectually demanding. It could require considerable study, meditative practice and so on.

Most people of high intellect and wealth...will sometime or the other dabble in spiritual and mystical practices. It is about personal quest and inner development. Its not the same as believing blindly in mythology.


 


 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

First of al...religion is a very loose term. It can range from simple forms of worship to complex rituals, philosophy and mysticism.   We cannot lump them all together.

Yes we can for this purpose - the discussion here is just about the correlative relationship between religiosity and poverty. It's simply an observable fact that they're correlated. The content of each denomination is a separate matter. 

It is possible that certain  religious practices are connected with education and wealth, but certain other aspects need not be so connected.

It's more than possible. The denial of access to contraception for example creates unsustainably large families and places a heavy burden on health care services, often in the places that can least afford either.   

Spirituality for example, can be very philosophical and intellectually demanding. It could require considerable study, meditative practice and so on.

I'll take your word for it. 

Most people of high intellect and wealth...will sometime or the other dabble in spiritual and mystical practices.

Why do you think that to be the case? Most people I know you'd describe as of "high intellect and wealth" and to my knowledge very few of them have so dabbled. Those that I can think of in fact (two of them) have used heir intellects to conclude that "spirituality" is so much woo with very little philosophical content. 

It is about personal quest and inner development. Its not the same as believing blindly in mythology.

They are not necessarily contradictory positions: some would argue that "personal quest and inner development" is just a gussied up way of saying "believing blindly in mythology".

[Gonnagle]

Dear ippy,

Another thought in your enquiry, Christianity ( probably most of the major religions ) speaks to the poor, it is all about helping the poor, I am sure that has a bearing.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

Another thought in your enquiry, Christianity ( probably most of the major religions ) speaks to the poor, it is all about helping the poor, I am sure that has a bearing.

Christopher Hitchens famously said of Mother Theresa that she was a lover of poverty, not of the poor. How does (for example) demanding unsustainably large families help the poor?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

I am not saying we have always gotten it right, as in the case of that poor woman Mother Theresa, one little woman who was given all that resposibility, one little woman who was given stupid rules by stupid people, we have the priviledge of hind sight, so if Shakers hero thinks that Mother Theresa was a lover of poverty I need to question that thought, one little woman who tried to change the world but was hampered by Church rules, rule of course she agreed with at the time, but that takes nothing away from all the positive that came out of her work.

But this thread gives me pause for thought, where you find the poor and needy, the uneducated you find the religious there to help.

Gonnagle.