> In the US, there is an incentive to use religion to control people and drag them toward their ideologies.

The same could be argued of The Science.

> Religion is so vague that it can be used by well-meaning people or ill-intentioned people.

Often, so too is The Science.

> The ill-intentioned people in a few large and powerful countries will make it easier to accelerate the downfall of religion everywhere, which is a net good.

Similarly, ill-intentioned people in a few large and powerful countries will make it easier to accelerate the downfall of humanity everywhere.

Also: I propose that "is a net good" is problematic due to being stated as an objective truth rather than a personal opinion. One would think "rational, scientific thinking" people would be less prone to this well known by science psychological phenomenon, but results suggest otherwise.

> While psychology is a young science that is still working out fundamental principles—it's still a science and will be able to confirm which of those behaviours actually are healthy.

Can science grant one the ability to see the future with accuracy, or might it be more true that it only reinforces that pre-existing illusion?

Science seems to grant humans little power in this arena (to be fair: it isn't really trying), but Eastern Religions have been working on the problem for ages and have many suggested approaches, many of which seem to work fairly well.

> It's how scientific pursuit is facing a threat from increasing religious fundamentalism in many parts of the world.

It may be worth wondering about the specifics of the backlash, where it exists.

For my part, I think "science", in all its forms (including the media and public's ~worship of it), is getting "too big for its britches", and I would prefer they "stick to their lane". Or at least: try to consider whether they do have a lane that they would be well advised, for the benefit of the whole, to stick to.

> This itself is a great irony considering those parts of the world have also experienced great scientific development alongside.

They have also typically experienced interference in their affairs by foreign powers, as well as many other things.

Causality seems simple, but it is not actually.

> I think a sound argument could be made that the "scientization" of society's representation of reality has caused significant harm to the recruitment efforts of religions.

I think a sound argument could be made that "scientization" of a wide range of values, institutions and other non-scientific ventures has cause significant harm to science.

By labelling a whole range of capitalist western cultural values, practices and structures as "scientific", ranging from capitalist economics, western "racial" categories, political institutions, etc... the failures in those structures and the genocide and discrimination they've enabled have permanently made a lot of people skeptical about the whole idea of "science" across the board.

> so in most cases there's nothing for science to "destroy".

I think a sound argument could be made that the "scientization" of society's representation of reality has caused significant harm to the recruitment efforts of religions.

Some people think this is a good thing, some people think this is a bad thing, most people do not wonder what the actual truth of the matter is. One would think that an increasingly scientific culture would have increased interest in what is true, but that seems highly questionable to me.

The Munchausen trilemma does neatly show the metaphysical impossibility of knowing anything for certain though it is somewhat self defeating. If all arguments and knowledge are based on unprovable assumptions—so is the Munchausen trilemma. The assumptions it makes are reasonable... but... that's its point. Reason depends on assumptions.

My question is—once you've reached the inevitable metaphysical conclusion that no truth is perfectly confirmable—where do you go from there? You must make assumptions to live. Presumably you assume you exist or that oxygen is necessary for life.

Does the uniform lack of absolute certainty affect the relative merits of arguments for truth? If not, can you say that having faith in something you directly experience and can confirm through repetition is the same as faith in something you've been told but cannot experience or test? You can't say either are True—but can you justifiably lean in a direction? Can you approach the truth? If you can approach the truth, are there methods that appear more likely to lead you in the correct direction?

IMHO—the idea that we cannot know anything for certain merely pushes me further towards worldviews that are inherently self questioning rather than ideological. Reason demands to be abandoned if it can be shown to be unsound.

> Science is not a religion it's a method to approach problems. There is nothing to be advertised.

The method is what needs advertisement. When it comes to something like conversion therapy or abstinence-only sex education the issue is not if it's the morally right thing to do or not, but that it flat out doesn't work to begin with. It fails to accomplish the stated goal.

> Emmanuel Kant was against the vaccine because he thought it further increases the already big population. It's very cruel but based purely on facts.

Doubtful. High risk of child death tends to lead to more children, not less. This is exactly what happens when you don't follow the science, but instead cherry pick your science facts to drive your ideology.

Few problems are well enough understood that it's only the ideology that makes the difference. Most of the time people are either willfully ignorant to the science or the science just hasn't well enough understood the issue at hand.

In his writings, Hans Blumenberg addresses the question of why humans are the only creatures on Earth who have a sense of history. He argues that this sense of history is what allows humans to create and maintain their own cultures.Blumenberg first addresses the question of why humans have a sense of history while other animals do not. He argues that this sense of history is what allows humans to create and maintain their own cultures. He then goes on to discuss the nature of human history and how it is different from the history of other animals.Blumenberg argues that the sense of history is what allows humans to create and maintain their own cultures. He states that human history is different from the history of other animals because it is based on the idea of progress. This idea of progress is what allows humans to create new things and to improve upon existing things.

> Religions do tend to make strong claims about healthy human behaviour.

Those tend to be claims about MORAL behaviour, which isn't a scientific question at all.

[removed]

In those cases too, you still have to look at a deeper understanding of the conditions in those specific countries rather than a generalized "religion vs science" lens.

It's fair to link religion to authoritarian movements generally, but that's still a political issue more than a scientific one.

Science is not a religion it's a method to approach problems. There is nothing to be advertised. The actually religion today is an ideology around success, capitalism, materialism and so on. The empirical evidence is only used to push one or another ideology. The scientific method is valueless and therefore useless as any kind of ideology. It's like saying "this awesome hammer I am using is my ideology"

Emmanuel Kant was against the vaccine because he thought it further increases the already big population. It's very cruel but based purely on facts.

The advertised new ideologies are individualized and group focused. Like the rise of conspiracy theories. Or calls to "follow the science". Also a ridiculous statement. Sabine Hossenfelder as a good video about that.

Religions do tend to make strong claims about healthy human behaviour.

While psychology is a young science that is still working out fundamental principles—it's still a science and will be able to confirm which of those behaviours actually are healthy.

But what I'm saying is that there is a fanatical adherence to reason as a methodology. It's unquestionable that reason can be wrong, even though we know that it is going to be proven wrong eventually.

The faith in human reason is the same as the faith in a greater power. It's impossible to justify one without using the system that it is built upon. The Munchausen paradox, in short, and why living rationally is actually based on an irrational idea or begging the question.

The principle difference is science is inherently self questioning and a fanatical application of it would be fanatically self questioning, not fanatically confident.

Science doesn't expect to provide the truth directly—it provides a mechanism to move closer to the truth by showing previous assumptions are not true. It's a process of elimination. I can't think of any other widespread worldview that operates on similar grounds.

This is a huge generalization, but overall religion and philosophy looks for truth and then tries to prove it with logical arguments—science looks for truth and then tried to disprove it with practical experiments.

While your examples are accurate, the article itself mentions different cases in India, Turkey and USA to point to the above mentioned statement.

> It's how scientific pursuit is facing a threat from increasing religious fundamentalism in many parts of the world.

Is it, though?

There is a political backlash against the advancement of rights for marginalized groups in different parts of the world, like the anti-trans hysteria in much of the UK and US for instance.

But even though that's "anti-science" it's far from being purely religious, and there are no shortage of secular bigots involved.

The rise of "Islamic Fundamentalism" wasn't some accident, or even related to "science" at all, it was an intentionally funded movement by US and Israeli interests as a bulwark against communism and other secular nationalist movements, which was viewed as a more dangerous enemy at the time. See for instance how Israel was largely responsible for the rise of Hamas as a counter-movement to Fatah, or US funding of Saudi and Afghanistan religious extremism.

[removed]

I apologize if i said something to suggest I believe mathematicians made it the case that 5 is a number through some actions of theirs. I definitely do not believe that. But the hypo remains re the mathematician convention etc. That seems intriguing to me. But maybe it doesn't seem like an intriguing hypo to you. Or not possible. Or whatever.

[deleted]

Religion does not have to provide scientific answers to continue to have its adherents. I don't think the point here is how science can prove religious beliefs as wrong. It's how scientific pursuit is facing a threat from increasing religious fundamentalism in many parts of the world. This itself is a great irony considering those parts of the world have also experienced great scientific development alongside.

[removed]

Well, the Christian fanatic would probably say the same. Or the homeopathist. Or the psychopath.

Sorry, I don't necessarily agree with the above. I've just been reading a lot of Kierkegaard lately.

Philosophy and Religion are science by other words.

[removed]