3 Minor copy edit
source | link

There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. The same is often the case about science, such as in Popper's picture that scientific practice is constantly approaching it's ideal.

To get a perspective that is not rooted only in our own time, we shoukdshould look not at what credoescredos say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice? This was taken up by Foucault. Not in contradiction to true knowledge about how the world works, but to explain how ideas propagate and are given importance.

Scientific practice cannot be exempted from critiquecritique or set outside history. That woukdwould put it on thea pedestal, instead of observing it in practice. Scientific community practice clearly has strengths, in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valueingvaluing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints, on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger, is in writing would be to write off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion.  

Science contributes increased knowledge. But religious practice has had benefits for community cohesion and moral thinking. We shouldn't see current scientifuc cuktureculture as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look also for the next steps. We must We must not only explain, but be.

There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. The same is often the case about science, such as in Popper's picture that scientific practice is constantly approaching it's ideal.

To get a perspective that is not rooted only in our own time, we shoukd look not at what credoes say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice? This was taken up by Foucault. Not in contradiction to true knowledge about how the world works, but to explain how ideas propagate and are given importance.

Scientific practice cannot be exempted from critique or set outside history. That woukd put it on the pedestal, instead of observing it in practice. Scientific community practice clearly has strengths, in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valueing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints, on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger, is in writing off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion.  

Science contributes increased knowledge. But religious practice has had benefits for community cohesion and moral thinking. We shouldn't see current scientifuc cukture as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look also for the next steps. We must not only explain, but be.

There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. The same is often the case about science, such as in Popper's picture that scientific practice is constantly approaching it's ideal.

To get a perspective that is not rooted only in our own time, we should look not at what credos say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice? This was taken up by Foucault. Not in contradiction to true knowledge about how the world works, but to explain how ideas propagate and are given importance.

Scientific practice cannot be exempted from critique or set outside history. That would put it on a pedestal, instead of observing it in practice. Scientific community practice clearly has strengths, in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valuing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger would be to write off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion.

Science contributes increased knowledge. But religious practice has had benefits for community cohesion and moral thinking. We shouldn't see current scientifuc culture as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look also for the next steps. We must not only explain, but be.

2 Edit in response to lack of references
source | link

There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. NotThe same is often the case about science, such as in Popper's picture that scientific practice is constantly approaching it's ideal.

To get a perspective that is not rooted only in our own time, we shoukd look not at what do credoes say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice?

Religion and science form a continuum, This was taken up by Foucault. Not in attempts to form allegiancescontradiction to methodologies for making sense oftrue knowledge about how the world. Not as frozen catechisms works, but as cultures of practice and communities. In this view, the big difference between science and religion is in their capacities for reform. Older polytheisms largely struggled to adapt to a post-tribal world. Monotheisms have chosen unity above overturning even non-biblical views, although in many cases eventually reforming. Some of those reforms, like Protestantism, may have undermined bonding rituals in the search for greater rationalityexplain how ideas propagate and are given importance.

Crucially this perspective doesn't exempt scientificScientific practice cannot be exempted from critique, or set outside history. That woukd put it on the pedestal that buying it's own catechisms would seem to require, instead of observing it in practice. Science isScientific community practice clearly far more capable of reform than previous coummunities of thought, is very good at crossing tribal and cultural lineshas strengths, and provides clear benefits in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valueing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints, on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger, is in writing off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion.

Do we ever really explain anything? I would argue ontology is in truth beyond our grasp. We decide only how much and what we want to question, before getting on with our livesScience contributes increased knowledge. The success of science inBut religious practice will see it integrated into futurehas had benefits for community thought structures because of it's success in war, like capitalism. But we will need moral ethical and governance development too, if we survive.

Science is one more step beyond religion, into exploring the unknowable and undecided, which are the universecohesion and ourselvesmoral thinking. We shouldn't see itcurrent scientifuc cukture as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look also for the next steps. We must not only explain, but be.

There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. Not what do credoes say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice?

Religion and science form a continuum, in attempts to form allegiances to methodologies for making sense of the world. Not as frozen catechisms, but as cultures of practice and communities. In this view, the big difference between science and religion is in their capacities for reform. Older polytheisms largely struggled to adapt to a post-tribal world. Monotheisms have chosen unity above overturning even non-biblical views, although in many cases eventually reforming. Some of those reforms, like Protestantism, may have undermined bonding rituals in the search for greater rationality.

Crucially this perspective doesn't exempt scientific practice from critique, or put it on the pedestal that buying it's own catechisms would seem to require, instead of observing it in practice. Science is clearly far more capable of reform than previous coummunities of thought, is very good at crossing tribal and cultural lines, and provides clear benefits in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valueing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints, on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger, is in writing off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion.

Do we ever really explain anything? I would argue ontology is in truth beyond our grasp. We decide only how much and what we want to question, before getting on with our lives. The success of science in practice will see it integrated into future community thought structures because of it's success in war, like capitalism. But we will need moral ethical and governance development too, if we survive.

Science is one more step beyond religion, into exploring the unknowable and undecided, which are the universe and ourselves. We shouldn't see it as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look for the next steps.

There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. The same is often the case about science, such as in Popper's picture that scientific practice is constantly approaching it's ideal.

To get a perspective that is not rooted only in our own time, we shoukd look not at what credoes say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice? This was taken up by Foucault. Not in contradiction to true knowledge about how the world works, but to explain how ideas propagate and are given importance.

Scientific practice cannot be exempted from critique or set outside history. That woukd put it on the pedestal, instead of observing it in practice. Scientific community practice clearly has strengths, in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valueing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints, on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger, is in writing off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion.

Science contributes increased knowledge. But religious practice has had benefits for community cohesion and moral thinking. We shouldn't see current scientifuc cukture as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look also for the next steps. We must not only explain, but be.

    Notice added Citation needed by Philip Klöcking
1
source | link

There is a tendency to portray Religion generally, or specific religions, as monolothic unchanging and clearly and uniquely codified. This is never true, and results from a mistake in buying how most religions describe themselves, and a wider reluctance from the scientific perspective to look at the development of ideas including scientific ones anthropologically. Not what do credoes say about themselves, but what do they do for people, in practice?

Religion and science form a continuum, in attempts to form allegiances to methodologies for making sense of the world. Not as frozen catechisms, but as cultures of practice and communities. In this view, the big difference between science and religion is in their capacities for reform. Older polytheisms largely struggled to adapt to a post-tribal world. Monotheisms have chosen unity above overturning even non-biblical views, although in many cases eventually reforming. Some of those reforms, like Protestantism, may have undermined bonding rituals in the search for greater rationality.

Crucially this perspective doesn't exempt scientific practice from critique, or put it on the pedestal that buying it's own catechisms would seem to require, instead of observing it in practice. Science is clearly far more capable of reform than previous coummunities of thought, is very good at crossing tribal and cultural lines, and provides clear benefits in resource-finding and technology. But there are dangers in valueing knowledge as morally neutral, because it isn't. There are ethical restraints, on weapons research, on animal experiments. But frequently moral thought and training are seen as outside the scientific curriculum. Very little energy is put into the supposed gold standard of science, repeating observational studies. And power structures impede and distort the emergence of new ideas. Perhaps the greatest danger, is in writing off all the lessons of human history on recurring moral dilemmas and healthy communities, which could be absorbed from reflective study of the attempts of one era to speak to another, which are religion.

Do we ever really explain anything? I would argue ontology is in truth beyond our grasp. We decide only how much and what we want to question, before getting on with our lives. The success of science in practice will see it integrated into future community thought structures because of it's success in war, like capitalism. But we will need moral ethical and governance development too, if we survive.

Science is one more step beyond religion, into exploring the unknowable and undecided, which are the universe and ourselves. We shouldn't see it as the end of development, in awe of where we are now, but look for the next steps.