Anthropology, Religion and Science

[Archaea]

An older, but still interesting article.

http://faculty.ircc.edu/faculty/jlet...20Religion.htm

[woot]

To summarize briefly, we know that no religious belief is true, because we know that all religious beliefs are either nonfalsifiable or falsified. In the interests of scientific integrity, we have an obligation to declare that knowledge.

That's seems like a pretty good summary. This is somewhat of a hot topic in certain circles, with many including Stephen J Gould thinking that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria" so science should stay away from it. I'm somewhere in the middle on the issue, but this is the domain of cultural anthropology, so it isn't my field. It does seem true that anthropology as a whole and religion are often in competition to explain the same things, and the paper does a good job with that topic.

[Archaea]

The argument is old, but I find they are arguing in the wrong manner.

I don't believe one should ever attribute "episteme" to religion. There are "events" which cause a believer to act, but they do not and will never rise to the level of empirical knowledge. It is a conviction, not even an Aristotelean "mythos" as it were.

To me, it's the wrong question.

Why does religion seek to assert the structure of events, when it's purpose is to divine a purpose, not a physical explanation of the cosmos?

The question is not whether I can determine whether an event took place, but whether I can divine value from an ethos.

My association with religion is not with its falsifiability of events, but whether its value is true and valid, or false and invalid.

I find cultural anthropology fascinating, but too many of its proponents are willing to go out on limbs making religious type predictions of knowledge.

In physics or math, approximations are shown in a fast fourier transform or a finite fourier transform, where a precise number may not be possible.

Cultural anthropology will never be able to make even that level of approximation.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The argument is old, but I find they are arguing in the wrong manner.

I don't believe one should ever attribute "episteme" to religion. There are "events" which cause a believer to act, but they do not and will never rise to the level of empirical knowledge. It is a conviction, not even an Aristotelean "mythos" as it were.

To me, it's the wrong question.

Why does religion seek to assert the structure of events, when it's purpose is to divine a purpose, not a physical explanation of the cosmos?

The question is not whether I can determine whether an event took place, but whether I can divine value from an ethos.

My association with religion is not with its falsifiability of events, but whether its value is true and valid, or false and invalid.

I find cultural anthropology fascinating, but too many of its proponents are willing to go out on limbs making religious type predictions of knowledge.

In physics or math, approximations are shown in a fast fourier transform or a finite fourier transform, where a precise number may not be possible.

Cultural anthropology will never be able to make even that level of approximation.

Yea I generally find it counterproductive to go after religion specifically. I'm all for following the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads to slaughtering sacred cows, but I've heard of cultural guys making it a point to refute religion. It's not something I have to deal with (other than evolution vs. creationism, which I do have strong feelings about), and perhaps that's for the best.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Yea I generally find it counterproductive to go after religion specifically. I'm all for following the evidence wherever it leads, even if it leads to slaughtering sacred cows, but I've heard of cultural guys making it a point to refute religion. It's not something I have to deal with (other than evolution vs. creationism, which I do have strong feelings about), and perhaps that's for the best.

Well again, evolution is the science and what purpose we serve is the discussion of "creation". That's the misunderstanding believers have, to misunderstand the question.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by woot

That's seems like a pretty good summary. This is somewhat of a hot topic in certain circles, with many including Stephen J Gould thinking that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria" so science should stay away from it. I'm somewhere in the middle on the issue, but this is the domain of cultural anthropology, so it isn't my field. It does seem true that anthropology as a whole and religion are often in competition to explain the same things, and the paper does a good job with that topic.

even in the social science community cultural anthropology is considered a joke. don't take that stuff too seriously.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

even in the social science community cultural anthropology is considered a joke. don't take that stuff too seriously.

So there's snobbery among the soft scientists?

A sorta honor among thieves?

[woot]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

even in the social science community cultural anthropology is considered a joke. don't take that stuff too seriously.

I haven't heard that at all. If anything there's jealousy that cultural anthopologists are constantly getting shows made on national geographic. Certainly there are harder and softer subdisciplines in every field, but cultural has some decently challenging stuff.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by woot

I haven't heard that at all. If anything there's jealousy that cultural anthopologists are constantly getting shows made on national geographic. Certainly there are harder and softer subdisciplines in every field, but cultural has some decently challenging stuff.

you gotta be kidding me.

stuff gets on national geographic cuz they're interesting.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

you gotta be kidding me.

stuff gets on national geographic cuz they're interesting.

Interesting TV <> Quality Science