Abandoning religion
Summary
TLDRThe transcript discusses the concept of 'darkside epistemology,' where lies necessitate further lies, drawing parallels to religious narratives that may conflict with scientific evidence. It argues against literalism in religious texts and highlights the challenges of the Enlightenment's attempt to discard religion. Instead, it suggests that the human need for mythology is deeply ingrained, as we are embodied consciousness. The conversation touches on the role of stories in shaping our understanding of the universe and the potential for science to create new narratives that resonate with our mythological heritage.
Takeaways
- 🚫 The speaker advocates for discarding religion and reconstructing human experience from scratch, as they believe it's better than trying to salvage anything from religion.
- 📜 The concept of 'darkside epistemology' is introduced, suggesting that lies necessitate more lies, creating a web of falsehoods that extend beyond specific facts to encompass entire belief systems.
- 🦎 The speaker uses the example of creationism versus evolutionary biology to illustrate how initial lies about the origins of life lead to further lies about the design of animals and what constitutes evidence.
- 📈 The speaker criticizes the 'retreat to commitment' that religion has made in the face of scientific challenges, arguing that it has led to a defensive stance and the development of bad epistemology to protect central religious lies.
- 🤔 The speaker acknowledges the problem of literalism in religious texts, where people take ancient scriptures literally and selectively apply their teachings without fully adhering to all aspects of the texts.
- 🌐 The Enlightenment's attempt to discard religion is seen as unsuccessful, with the speaker arguing that reason alone is a poor substitute for the human need for meaning and narrative.
- 🎭 The speaker argues that the heritage of religion, particularly its mythological aspects, is an integral part of human culture and consciousness that cannot be easily discarded or replaced.
- 🌟 The embodiment of humans as conscious beings is highlighted as a reason why mythologies and narratives persist, as they serve a deep-seated need for stories that explain our place in the universe.
- 📚 The speaker suggests that even scientific endeavors, such as writing papers on complex topics like magnetohydrodynamic Riemann solvers, have a narrative structure that can be influenced by the need for a compelling story.
- 🌌 The potential for science to create new 'true stories' about the universe is discussed, with the speaker emphasizing the importance of these stories being true, regardless of other benefits they may provide.
- 🔄 The speaker points out that many possible narratives for the universe have already been mapped out in mythologies, suggesting that even scientific cosmology may inadvertently retell these ancient stories.
Q & A
What is the 'fourth position' mentioned in the transcript?
-The 'fourth position' refers to the idea of discarding religion and starting over to reconstruct the human experience without relying on religious teachings.
What is 'darkside epistemology' and how does it relate to the need for more lies?
-Darkside epistemology is a concept suggesting that lies require other lies to maintain consistency. It implies that once a falsehood is introduced, additional lies are needed to support it, creating a web of deceit.
How does the concept of lying about one's actions at work illustrate the idea of darkside epistemology?
-Lying about one's actions at work can lead to a chain of lies, such as lying about the presence of the boss, which then requires further lies to maintain the initial falsehood, exemplifying the concept of darkside epistemology.
What shift occurs when discussing religious teachings and the need for lies according to the transcript?
-The shift is from lying about particular facts to lying about the rules of evidence and the considerations used to determine what constitutes good evidence, which reflects a deeper entanglement in falsehoods.
What is the 'retreat to commitment' mentioned in the transcript?
-The 'retreat to commitment' is a defensive stance taken by religion against scientific advancements, where believers protect their core beliefs without necessarily engaging in open inquiry or accepting scientific evidence.
Why is literalism considered a problem according to the discussion?
-Literalism is problematic because it involves taking ancient scriptures written under different conditions literally, leading to a rigid interpretation that may not align with contemporary understanding and can hinder progress.
What is the argument against discarding religious heritage and starting over?
-The argument against discarding religious heritage is that it is an integral part of human culture and experience. It is believed that even if we attempt to start over, the deep-seated human need for mythology and narrative will re-emerge.
How does the concept of mythologies play a role in the discussion?
-Mythologies are seen as a universal human heritage that reflects our embodied consciousness. They provide narratives that resonate with us on a deep level, and these narratives are likely to re-emerge in any new stories we construct about the universe, even when based on scientific understanding.
What does the speaker suggest about the role of stories in understanding the universe?
-The speaker suggests that stories about the universe, including scientific narratives, serve an important function and should ideally be true. However, the way humans naturally tell and interpret stories may not always align with the core facts.
How does the transcript relate the idea of science and fun?
-The transcript implies that science could benefit from incorporating more fun and engaging narratives, as the current scientific discourse may be too dry and lacking in the mythological elements that resonate with human consciousness.
What does the discussion about cosmology and myth suggest about the future of scientific storytelling?
-The discussion suggests that future scientific storytelling, particularly in cosmology, will likely draw on the rich heritage of mythologies to construct narratives that are both scientifically accurate and emotionally resonant for humans.
Outlines
🧐 Darkside Epistemology and the Problem with Religion
The speaker introduces the concept of 'darkside epistemology,' which suggests that lies necessitate more lies. This idea is applied to religious narratives, where the speaker argues that once a foundational lie is established (e.g., creationism vs. evolutionary biology), it leads to a cascade of additional lies to support the initial one. The speaker criticizes the defensive stance religion has taken against science, leading to a 'retreat to commitment' and the development of flawed epistemology to protect these central lies. The discussion then shifts to the issue of literalism in religious texts and the selective adherence to certain aspects of these texts by followers, highlighting the complexity of dealing with religious heritage.
🌌 The Enduring Influence of Mythology in Religion and Science
The speaker discusses the universal and enduring nature of mythologies across cultures, referencing Joseph Campbell's 'The Hero with a Thousand Faces.' The argument is made that our embodied consciousness makes us naturally inclined towards mythological narratives, which are deeply ingrained in our understanding of the world. The speaker suggests that even in the realm of science, narratives and stories play a significant role, particularly when discussing grand theories like cosmology. The idea is that these scientific narratives may unconsciously draw from the mythological stories that have already been told, indicating that religion and mythology have an intrinsic and inescapable influence on our collective consciousness.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Darkside Epistemology
💡Literalism
💡Retreat to Commitment
💡Mythology
💡Embodied Consciousness
💡Hero's Journey
💡Enlightenment
💡Cosmology
💡Narrative
💡Epistemology
💡Science
Highlights
The introduction of the 'fourth position' which suggests discarding religion and reconstructing the human experience from scratch.
The concept of 'darkside epistemology' where lies require additional lies to maintain consistency.
The example of how a simple lie about one's actions can lead to a cascade of further lies and deceptions.
The discussion on how creationism versus evolutionary biology can lead to a series of lies about the origins and design of animals.
The shift from lying about specific facts to lying about the rules of evidence and considerations for evaluating truth.
The critique of religion's defensive stance against science, leading to a 'retreat to commitment' and the development of bad epistemology.
The agreement on the problem of literalism in religious texts and the selective adherence to certain aspects of these texts.
The argument against discarding religious heritage and starting over, citing the Enlightenment's unsuccessful attempt.
The assertion that reason alone is a poor substitute for people in their everyday lives, leading to the rise of the Romantics.
The importance of heritage within religion and the difficulty of escaping it, as it is deeply ingrained in human consciousness.
The discussion on mythologies and their universality across cultures, as proposed by Joseph Campbell and the hero's journey.
The idea that human stories and mythologies are deeply connected to our embodied consciousness and will inevitably re-emerge.
The critique of science's lack of fun and the need for a more engaging narrative in scientific storytelling.
The assertion that scientific theories, even at the largest scale, become narratives that we choose to frame within the context of mythologies.
The example of cosmology as a mythological science, where many possibilities have already been mapped out in mythology.
The suggestion that the real answer to the universe's nature may not be on our current list of possibilities.
Transcripts
let me make some of the case here for
what I've called the fourth position
that we should just cast aside religion
and start over that whatever we
reconstruct of the human experience
we're probably better off doing it over
rather than trying to take anything from
religion um and and and if I were to
sort of start explaining that viewpoint
I would start with the concept of what I
call darkside epistemology and the
concept there is that lies require other
lies if you lie about what you were
doing at work yesterday you might have
to lie about whether or not the boss was
there you know you know you lie your
wife too but what about what you were
doing at work yesterday then you have to
lie about whether or not the boss is
there in case she thinks to ask the boss
then you have to lie about what your
boss was doing or similarly I hate to
bring up the debate the turtle debate
again but creationism versus
evolutionary biology first you lie about
where animals come from then you'd have
to lie about how well designed animals
are and then you have to start lying
about what constitutes evidence so now
we've taken the shift from lying about
particular facts and of course that you
just have to tell more and more life
because all these facts are entangled
but sorry I just heard a little strange
toner you still there
yeah I'm still here yeah okay so
miracles of cell phones America
wonderful miracles of cell phones yeah
so you have to lie about all these facts
now you also have to lie about the rules
of evidence and once you have to lie
about the rules of evidence you also
have to lie about the considerations
that you bring in to decide whether or
not something is a good rule of evidence
you have to lie about what thinking is
for you have to say well the point is to
generate warm fuzzy feelings of faith
and not to find the the truth story the
the map that reflects the territory back
in the old days when before religion
went on its defensive against science
you know you these people really believe
that their cosmology was correct
they were advocating their cosmology as
something that yet as the map that
reflected the territory this was
supposed to be the way things were but
once religion went on the defensive
against science it executed what I
believe William Bartley called
called the retreat to commitment I
believe because I believe and with that
defensiveness they had to protect sort
of the central lies what you've called
the results they have to protect those
things and they developed a whole system
of not just false assertions but also of
bad epistemology to defend I think
they're gonna be this is a place we're
going to agree I mean the problem but
we're gonna decide this I'll get to the
disagreement in a moment but first the
agreement is that you know essentially
that the great error is literalism is
that people take these scriptures which
were written you know thousands of years
ago under a wholly different conditions
and actually you know believe that every
word of it and also of course they're
picking and choosing to write they're
not selling their daughters into slavery
or you know carrying forward all the
percenter some some religions pick and
choose less than others exactly but you
know it's the literalism that is is the
problem but here's a but if what I will
disagree with as a strategy for dealing
with this is you know the idea that we
could throw out our heritage right our
heritage of that of which religion is
apart and start over again is very much
an Enlightenment idea right I mean this
was very much like what drove many of
the Enlightenment why should why not
slow off religion I mean science has no
trouble slowing things off you know it's
wrong you say oops you move on right
well two reasons okay two reasons one is
good luck good luck with that right
because that's what the Enlightenment
tried to do and it didn't work and it
didn't work for a variety of reasons one
which is that this ideal of
sure reason is a pretty poor substitute
for people in their lives okay that mean
that's what I would argue and that's
what I think that's why in some sense
here you got the romantics very quickly
after the Enlightenment and then they
had the other lead can it be done the
war continues we will bring pure reason
to the masses and the second reason is
is that there's a heritage within
religion you know with it that is part
of what we now the institutional
religions which there's no I feel
there's no way of getting past and that
and my argument for this is Luke
Skywalker right I mean you know
mythologies and this is one of the
reasons I spend a lot of time in the
book thinking about mythologies first
starting with Joseph Campbell and his
ideas of you know the hero with a
thousand faces but the commonality of
mythologies across cultures and then
trying to expand away from just his you
know sort of narrow interpretation of
mythology but the idea that that you
know we have this heritage of Mythology
that we just can't get away from we can
try to but it carries with us for very
deep reasons most of all because we're
embodied we are embodied consciousness
so if there's really elegance if it's
really that deep then well then it will
emerge again when it comes time to
entirely out of science construct our
new true stories because a very
important function of a story about how
the universe works is to actually be
true whatever else you get out of it you
know it's nice if it were true so but
but if you but if there are these these
ways that humans prefer to tell and
interpret to their stories regardless of
sort of as it were thee the core facts
and before you decide how you feel about
them then you know maybe Joseph temple
will look at the story that I would tell
about humanity's emergence in the in the
universe and say humanity is the hero of
the story and humanity is on a quest to
take over the universe and be crowned
ruler of you know the galaxies that it
has transformed into civilizations okay
well good for Joseph Campbell but where
does religion come into it well it's not
it's again I'm sorry
well here's the reason why is that story
that you're going to tell has already
been told what happens actually in
science what I argue in the book is that
you know when I write it
paper on magneto hydrodynamic riemann
solvers right there's not a whole lot of
Mythology in it it's it though it is a
narrative it's a narrative of you know
an attempt to fulfill a task the
difficulties the trying and I think that
because science is doing it wrong and
having too little fun but that's a whole
separate time well yeah no I kind of
agree I remember I had a professor one
time early on and I showed him my paper
and he said what's that I said that's a
joke sir and he's like we don't put
jokes in papers so I learned very very
quickly that yeah we don't have enough
fun in science but you know when we get
to the largest scale the largest
embodiment of our of our scientific
theorizing it always becomes a narrative
and very often it is we consciously or
unconsciously choose our narratives
choose to frame our narratives within
the context of the storehouse of
mythologies Marcelo gleiser who's a
cosmologists myth has talked about this
that really when you look at say
cosmology which is a very mythological
kind of science
um you see that actually already in
mythology's all the different
possibilities have been mapped out the
universe is a cycle right the universe
started from nothing out of a void you
know the universe is a is kaykai emerged
from chaos and so you know I gave you 30
years with nods that whatever the real
answer is it's not on your list at all
but leaving that aside well no but I
think actually what you're gonna find is
as mythology already has imagined many
of those and we are almost for to danger
on those
you
Ver Más Videos Relacionados
6/8 Jun - Grand Final of Indonesia Open 2023
Why Snakes Are Associated With the Demonic and Lies | Jonathan Pageau & Fr. Andrew Damick
Spiritual but not Religious?
The storytelling animal: Jonathan Gottschall at TEDxFurmanU
Jordan Peterson: Christ & Suffering
Yuval Noah Harari: AI is a “social weapon of mass destruction” to humanity | GZERO World
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)