The discussion centers on Paul Feyerabend's philosophy regarding the nature of science, particularly his comparison of science to religion. Participants explore the implications of his views on scientific methodology, the role of rationalism, and the influence of external factors on scientific practice.
Participants do not reach a consensus on Feyerabend's views. While some appreciate the criticisms he raises, others challenge the validity of his comparisons and the implications of his philosophy.
Participants note that Feyerabend's approach may overlook the effectiveness of rationalism and the scientific method, and there are unresolved questions about the impact of external influences on scientific practice.
noblegas said:People were athiestic during stalin's reign of soviet russia, but they were all devoted to Soviet Union and Stalin
JoeDawg said:I did, Democritus predates Plato, and Plutarch, and he had no such 'rational god', a phrase I find rather amusing considering the Judeo-christian god is anything but rational. Petty and vindictive, for sure, but rational?? That is historical revisionism.
No, I just think the 'rational god' thing is nonsense. Gods are invariably wrathful and vain, and usually, and certainly in the major religions, represent aspects of human nature taken to an extreme. They do not represent a moderate rational view. Even the various love-gods were not rational. And the gods of Ancient Greece and Rome were anything but rational. On top of that, as I mentioned, it was quite common for those who didn't believe in gods to be the emprical sort. Plato may have advocated rational thought, but it was mostly based on his view that geometry implied a perfection to the universe. He then attributed this to gods. But geometry is a human thing. Nothing in nature is a perfect circle.
One of the things that Socrates was accused of was atheism. He was put to death.
Gee, I wonder why more people didn't admit to being atheists.
Not a lot of homosexuals until modern times either, I guess.
This sort of persecution continued throughout history, and is generally not conducive to public expressions of lack of belief in the supernatural.
Religion is about revealed truth. The truth of what was on Moses tablets, the truth of the Qur'an, the truth of what Jesus said. From the beginning, even in the east, religions have been about a small number of people telling everyone else how to live. Its about control and being part of the tribe of belief. This is why we have a word like 'heresy', and where the hindu caste system comes from. Even within religions truth is mandated, not discovered. You may want to separate religion and dogma, but history shows this is not the case, and was never so.
And as an atheist, I find your equivocation of being rational with believing in the supernatural quite insulting.