is it a myth that religion cannot change its mind while science can?

>>9028660
Certainly religious institutions can and do change their minds, but usually only after external pressures are so overwhelming that it becomes a PR problem not to.

>>9028683

but surely some still do change their minds on logic and evidence. or probably a mix of both this rationality and the pressure.

>>9028734
>logic and evidence
>religion
Anon...

>>9028740
Shit, forgot the m'
Sorry

>>9028740

the catholic church wouldnt change views on evolution if there was no evidence. and its not like scientists also get PR pressure to view things a certain way or change.

>>9028743
m?

>>9028660
Religion is just popular consesus.

The collective human conciousness takes a while to catch up with the objectivity of science, but it does happen. That's why the church is always panicing because people are getting too secular.

>>9028762
but what determines popular consensus?

>>9028660
when religion changes its mind it branches off and becomes a new cult or sect.
when science changes its mind it changes its mind

>>9028794
Hard reality. Which is determined by science.

Don't you see? It's a loop.

>>9028801
>>9028798

desu i feel both of them change their minds but the main difference is the types of questions they ask and answer

>>9028798
>>9028801

change their minds based on evidence*

and to elaborate further i mean that the type of questions science asks and answers demonstrably has and does need more rigour against counterfactual claims.

>>9028809
>>9028810
What you're talking about is the difference between subconcious thought and concious thought.

But are they really different?

>>9028819
>>9028810
Science is the individual. Collective conciousness is the whole.

Religion lies somewhere in-between.

>>9028819
what are you talking about?

and why is science the individual

>>9028660
Religion:
A book of the perfect infallible instruction of a perfect being
Science:
A method of determining what can be demonstrated to be true reliably

these things are very different

>>9028857
Who makes scientific discoveries? Ultimately it's a collaborative effort, but why do we identify with singular men and women who start the ball rolling?
Science is concious understanding, which exists only in the individual. "I think therefore I am."

However, concious thought process only accounts for the self. Not the collective. That's where religion steps in. Religion exists to control the collective conciousness, the "mob," without much care paid to the individual. That's why religious stories focus more on men and women that represent broader concepts in much more simple, easy to understand terms.

That's why people here hate pop science so much. It exists to control the masses, and thus it is the antithesis to all things science and reason hold dear.

But there exists a point between these two. Where the individual and the collective conciousness cease are one and the same.

If you can learn to control that, you've got control of everything.

>>9028912
yeah but lets look at it from the real world; alot of religionsi atleast in the west dont fully abide to a book and are subject to change. In fact, the catholic and orthodox churches arguably place the church above the book.

>>9028949

so what is the general principle concerning this hierarchy? control? science doesn't really control though. its not really associated with morality. in ways it does control how people live their lives; people appeal to science when talking about health and this could arguably refer to controlling a collective consciousness?

>>9028964
That's the point. There is no general principle concerning this hierarchy. There exists nothing but the hierarchy. It servers to control itself.

>Science dosen't really control it
Doesn't it? Recall Schrodinger's cat.

>People appeal to science when talking about health and this could arguably refer to controlling a collective conciousness

Bingo.

>>9028660

The world can only be one way, can't it?

>>9028994
Yes and no.

That's the beauty of it.

>>9028990
you say bingo but then ive just shown your hierarchy isnt internally consistent.

im not sure what you mean about schrodingers cat

>>9028996
depends on our egocentric perspective. theres no such thing as mind independent constructs or perception in the sense that all we see is gone through the top-down interpretation of our minds and so things can be seen from multiple ways and we may never be able to uncover the latent causes or mappings of our percepts. The latent causes of the world may operate in one way, but to understand them we must make inferences from our limited perspectives, and because this is an intractable, ill posed problem (see phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-posed_problem) with no unique solution, the world seems to be viewable in multiple ways as different conjugations of causes can produce near identical observations depending on how you conceptualise those observations (through multiple hierarchies of nested causes) even though the actual nested latent cause may be one way. Often these latent causes are just abstract causes, not necessarily things we consider real for instance, our use of math to describe observations in the world.

>>9028996

we can never directly see latent causes.

this brings an interesting notion to bear on what reality is to us. how do you define it.

the only way to conceptualise reality seems to be structure, order, entropy whereby the content is irrelevent i.e. reality is simply defined by our ability to predict things. just like how people seem to view science now.

Reality is pure prediction. Theres nothing more, nothing less. mind-independent constructs do not exist/are not accessible/are meaningless without access yet totally dependent on it. Reality is our egocentric predictive mapping. nothing else.

i like to see this as a weird melding of consequences from Karl friston's free energy principle and arguments from george berkeley on idealism, minus the theism

>>9029147
Exactly. The only consistent thing about this hierarchy is it's inconsistency.

To understand this is to understand reality without that troublesome depression most smart people go through

Because we, through our depression, are experiencing positivity, and vice vursa.

>>9029172
You've just used a wall of text to explain exactly what I explained in two sentences.

>>9029180
In the end, it explains that all things are the same through their difference. The only thing they have in common is that they are different.

>>9028660

> religion cannot change its mind while science can

bible literally has a new testament in it.

>>9031196
but thats a new religion?

File: 478ff315df6a7dc5cb3439ee6143b2cb5d3200c7.jpg (19KB, 456x300px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 456x300px

>>9028660
Religion is a corrupted philosophy, so no. Religion by definition is about cults, communism, tyranny, lies, bullshit fed to idiots, the weak, the naive.

The only true "religion" is ecology, eugenics and morality through subconscious thoughts. (It should be natural to feel good being responsible and helping, it shouldn't depend on a conscious thought.)

>>9028660
The early history of Christianity is rife with heretical viewpoints which had to be debated, argued, accepted or rejected. More recent history is also rife with that, come to think of it.

So yes,it is a myth.

Note that I am using "heretical" in a technical sense.

>all religion is Judaism, Islam or Christianity

Fuck. You guys are dumb.

>>9031636
tbf, thats what op has in mind when u say religion considering that those are the leading ones people give stick to vs. science because they are highly institutionalised while also historically those are the main ones to grow along side science and arguably most effected by it. guess they easy examples. wonder how things like hinduism fit thouh. or buddhism

>>9031678
Scientific method is literally hard coded in hindu and Buddhist texts.

Like 75% of Hindus and Buddhist People are just too fucking dumb to realise it.

>>9031682
how so?

>>9031699
Skepticism and understanding of limits of knowledge:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasadiya_Sukta

The religion is intended to be constantly evolving. Just read around generally and you'll get the idea.

>>9028660
Can mathematics change it's mind once it proves something? Truth is truth.
>>9028683
Only if they are a shit like Protestantism.
>>9028912
>Mathematics:
>Books of the perfect infallible theorems of perfect beauty.

>>9028912
>Science:
>A method of determining what can be demonstrated to be true reliably

That's not what science is at all. Take your shitty popsci views out of here.