Anathema of Science and Religion

by LittleToe 40 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  kid-A

  "Both have a plethora of subdivisions, but get generalised under the same topic head."

  > Yes, a plethora of subdivisions in science, but that is of practical necessity. My discipline is neuroscience, and even a sub-discipline within neuroscience. That is simply because a researcher has to focus on a limited set of questions that can be practically answered by a single, well-equipped laboratory (with sufficient funding, no less!). Not sure what you mean by generalized under the same topic head. Just a quick gander at MedLine and you will see thousands of specialty journals, each dealing with a specific area of research. If you mean its all "science", sure thats true, but that simply refers to a common method of uncovering observable phenomena, common statistical methods and a generally common way to design experiments (even there, we have profound differences between the life sciences and the physical sciences). On another note, there is an active, if somewhat understated push within many scientific disciplines for a "grand unifying" theory, Im sure you are aware of this in Physics. But in Neuroscience, this has most recently been the collective effort to unravel the neural basis of consciousness, which includes scientists from the cognitive realm, animal and human researchers, imaging studies, neuroinformatics, information theory, computer modellers, etc etc.

  In brief: We WANT to find out the answers. The religionists THINK they already have all the answers. This is why there will never be a unification of these two very different modes of information seeking.

  Now, given the dvisions in Science, there really is no rational way to compare this to the "divisions" in religion. First, I am unaware of any bands of terrorists from the Physics department on the 6th floor plotting to bomb our biology labs on the 3rd floor..... Second, scientists, REGARDLESS of discipline, have mutual respect and admiration for our colleagues. Our divisions are not based on race, historical fights over land, sectarian divisions, bigotry and hatred as seen amongst Jews, Christians (catholics + protestants), Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc etc. As for religion being generalized under the same topic head, again, I would have to disagree. They share a common "belief" in the supernatural, but thats about where the similarities end.
• 

  hillary_step

  LT,

  I have to agree with Narkissos on this. Intellectual laziness, a flaw in thinking in which most of us were well-trained by the WTS, is often carried into our XJW lives. The WTS flourished under a regime of convincing us that psuedo-intellectualism was actually the great truth. It led to a world of intellectual snap decisions and short attention spans. It became so easy under this regime, for the uneducated to read an article on nuclear physics in the AWAKE! magazine and become a expert in their own eyes.

  I have noticed that many who leave the WTS are either ravenous for knowledge, or they reach for the things that sound the most superficially convincing - conspiratorial schemes, amorality, political simplicity etc. The thing these flaws must all have in common is to be strident and confident in their claims. We XJW's clamor for a certainty, which ironically is the place that we have just left. Of course XJW's do not have the monopoly on such behavior, but it is certainly a noticeable trait, especially when we discuss matters that require a smidgeon of research, analysis, and critical thinking.

  That is why I have learned to respect the indifference in a person that Didier notes. Indifference is always more easily respected than the person who is wrong about a matter yet refuses to believe in anything but the half-informed views with which they live. Perhaps the mark of intellectual maturity is an ability to function socially while knowing that very little in this mysterious Universe seems certain, and that certainty over spiritual matters is very probably a chemical abberation.
• 

  LittleToe

  Rabbit:
  You've demonstrated my point. It's like there's a "reaction" to certain topics that are sometimes difficult to overcome. Even when it's possible to muster up something good to say, it's softened by emphasising either the bad or how rare it is.

  Kid:

  In brief: We WANT to find out the answers. The religionists THINK they already have all the answers.

  I think you've thrown in another generalisation there. Theology continues to be a progressive discipline, as evidenced by the debates promoted by Spong and even the incredibly varied New Age religions.

  Some of us are happy to confess that we don't have all the answers and never will, but continue to enjoy and promote the quest (in both subjects).
• 

  LittleToe

  Hillary:While I agree entirely with your elaboration of Didier and Diane's points, I still maintain that in an environment such as this the indifferent will rarely post.

  Rabbit:
  Addendum: If some people do good merely because they are good, what is the big issue with them living their lives according to a particular framework of belief? I guess my pidge with this is that the terms in which such people are described include such adjectives as deluded, etc.

  Whence comes this intense need to derogatorily describe folks whose opinions and frame of reference differ from our own?

  At this point I widen the subject again to include the deriders of those with scientific leanings. It certainly seems to cut both ways, especially on this Board.
• 

  james_woods

  OK, I may have been off-topic a little, LT. I thought that you were speculating on the mind-set of JWs themselves, rather than exJWs.

  Back on subject - as far as the aversion to religion - many exJWs IMHO just don't want anything more to do with religion after the JW experience. They may have become much too cynical on the subject to much want to go to even the most liberal of the mainstream churches. I for one am just all religioned out right now & have been since leaving JW in 1981.

  On science - most JWs I knew were so pitifully ignorant of real science that if they left the JW they would just have the idea that science is a sort of evolutionary psuedo-religion and so is not to be trusted. I don't have that opinion, because I was always a science enthusiast (even while a JW) and have always been in professions where science knowledge is a fundamental requirement. I always thought that the JW take on science subjects was preschool level childish. I mean, these are people who really believe that mankind has only been here about 6000 years in spite of archeology, fossils, prehistory, and what have you.

  I sincerely hope a lot of of exJWs with this anti-science attitude take another look at the fascinating subject of legitimate science.
• 

  LittleToe

  James:
  Either way it seems to me that your comments were on the button.

  I always thought that the JW take on science subjects was preschool level childish. I mean, these are people who really believe that mankind has only been here about 6000 years in spite of archeology, fossils, prehistory, and what have you.

  I find this with theology, too. JWs and often exJWs don't know the most basic things about the develoment and continuing evolution of religous belief. The reason I find this especially concerning is that so much of their worldview is tainted by their indoctrination in misinformed "preschool level" of the subject.

  It's difficult to ignore the fact that the socio-cultural world in which we live has been formed in the context of developing religion. So many of our practices and values are steeped in it, from Holidays of all descriptions through to recompense and justice.

  To ignore our history is to repeat our mistakes. It might not be designated under the terms "religion" or "science", but culture and fashion tends to rotate in cycles.
• 

  NanaR

  Hey LT,

  Good subject!!

  Have you noticed how so many exJWs are polarised as to their views of particularly science and religion? Some seem to take the time to get informed, and others are content to hold onto previous [mis]conceptions (most likely coloured by the WTS) about science and religion being evil and/or corrupt. They are quite literally anathema to some, and this isn't limited to one or the other subject, but can often include both!

  I have noticed that in posts here on JWD. I understand why JWs are "polarised" as to science and religion, but I really DON'T understand why exJWs are.

  I believe engaging in the study of science and mathematics at college that I started in 1996 has widened and deepened my world view and my appreciation for the Universe and God. Of course over the last 10 years I have been moving farther and farther away from JW doctrine (I count my actual "departure" as being from Fall 2003 although I'm not DFd or DAd but totally inactive). However I have found while working in an academic setting that large numbers of people (not just JWs) think science is nonsense and mathematics is useless. It's a mindset that I find nearly incomprehensible, but it is very real.

  As to religion, I went from being an active JW to being an "ethical pagan" to being a dispassionate observer to the place where I am now -- that is falling in love with Catholicism. I never felt like arguing AGAINST the EXISTENCE of God. I just wasn't sure what it was that he wanted from ME. I was also very tired of talking about religion, after a lifetime of "cold calling" at my neighbor's doors.

  I constantly have to check myself with regard to my religious and moral opinions. I find even after all these years that remnants of my decades as a Witness will pop up. When I think I "know" something, I look at the research, I put what I think down and question it. Oh yeah, that's part of the SCIENTIFIC method, which brings up your other question:

  It might seem unusual to lump both of these subjects together, but there seem to be clear parallels in attitudes, to me. Or am I just sidetracked because both subjects are passions of mine?

  These subjects are both passions of mine as well. But I had to leave religion behind and then come back to it from a totally different direction. I don't know why science would be such an emotional topic as to produce "anathema". In my experience, the people who find science to be "anathema" are mostly people who know little or nothing about it. I am fascinated by biology, geology, physics, and mathematics. I am a science nut. But I am not emotional about science; my sense of identity is not wrapped up in it (as it might be in religion).

  So perhaps though I love both subjects, I don't see parallels exactly where you are asking. But these are good questions!

  NanaR
• 

  proplog2

  I think of Religion as very old "science". Kind of a protoscience. Religion is an attempt at orientation in time.
• 

  LittleToe

  Nana:
  It sounds like you've had an interesting journey

  Proplog:
  I know we've crossed swords more often than agreed, but I really like your summation
• 

  james_woods

  NanaR - this is an interesting viewpoint you made:

  However I have found while working in an academic setting that large numbers of people (not just JWs) think science is nonsense and mathematics is useless. It's a mindset that I find nearly incomprehensible, but it is very real.

  I agree. I read a lot of popular science literature (actual science, though - not the grocery store magazine Popular Science!). One article a while back on the level of incredible science mis-knowledge and indifference gave a coupld of examples:

  A lady with a college degree in the Liberal Arts who truly believed that her TV set would use less electricity if she tied the power cord in knots.

  A study with a poll which indicated that many (a high %)of the people in the USA who enthusiastically believe in UFOs also still believe in perpetual motion machines, cold fusion, and that the US moon landings were faked in a warehouse in Arizona.

  I personally know an EPA scientist with a masters degree in chemistry who had absolutely no knowledge of the Standard Model of subnuclear particles, had never heard of quarks, and was only vaguely aware of the so-called "string theory" because of a piece on educational TV.