Author Topic: The why factor.  (Read 215 times)

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6607
  • Gender: Male
The why factor.
« on: July 15, 2018, 08:21:46 AM »
I and going to posit that there is no functional difference between the establishments of religion and scientific endeavour and that they both have their origin in "The why factor". I very much doubt that this is original but I have never posed the idea to myself in quite this way before.

Human curiosity, the need to explain, to know, is inherent and the learning curve about the nature of all physical things is exponential, up to limit of sustainability of life the growth in human population increases the "volume" of human experience and knowledge and simultaneous discovery plus replication adds confidence.

Yet religion, effectively, stagnates - "The why factor", in terms of the investigation of the natural universe, is almost antithetical to established thought. The, "Why, God, do you allow the innocent to suffer?" question may be a direct challenge if voiced by a believer.

Yet the seeking of reasons for natural phenomena seems likely to have been the origins of both modes of thought regarding the irigin and nsture of Universe. The difference is the huge, and growing, body of corroborative evidence compared to that stagnation mentioned above. Theological investigation is inherently introspective, the number of angels on a pin's point rather than the evolution and biology of the angels and the origin of the pin.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Essie Mae

  • Free to think.
  • Not Defeated by the Dark Night of the Soul
  • ****
  • Posts: 1641
  • Gender: Female
  • I Hope Uncle Bert is still my friend.
Re: The why factor.
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2018, 04:52:37 PM »
I and going to posit that there is no functional difference between the establishments of religion and scientific endeavour and that they both have their origin in "The why factor". I very much doubt that this is original but I have never posed the idea to myself in quite this way before.

Human curiosity, the need to explain, to know, is inherent and the learning curve about the nature of all physical things is exponential, up to limit of sustainability of life the growth in human population increases the "volume" of human experience and knowledge and simultaneous discovery plus replication adds confidence.

Yet religion, effectively, stagnates - "The why factor", in terms of the investigation of the natural universe, is almost antithetical to established thought. The, "Why, God, do you allow the innocent to suffer?" question may be a direct challenge if voiced by a believer.

Yet the seeking of reasons for natural phenomena seems likely to have been the origins of both modes of thought regarding the irigin and nsture of Universe. The difference is the huge, and growing, body of corroborative evidence compared to that stagnation mentioned above. Theological investigation is inherently introspective, the number of angels on a pin's point rather than the evolution and biology of the angels and the origin of the pin.

Some of the ‘why’ brigade employed unbiased observation, studies and experimentation, (not saying they were perfect), while the others just made up explanations which could also conveniently be used for control and power. Those explanations have been refined over the centuries by some brilliant and devious minds; no wonder it has lasted so long.
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. Wm Shakespeare


Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6607
  • Gender: Male
Re: The why factor.
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2018, 06:08:06 PM »
I and going to posit that there is no functional difference between the establishments of religion and scientific endeavour and that they both have their origin in "The why factor". I very much doubt that this is original but I have never posed the idea to myself in quite this way before.

Human curiosity, the need to explain, to know, is inherent and the learning curve about the nature of all physical things is exponential, up to limit of sustainability of life the growth in human population increases the "volume" of human experience and knowledge and simultaneous discovery plus replication adds confidence.

Yet religion, effectively, stagnates - "The why factor", in terms of the investigation of the natural universe, is almost antithetical to established thought. The, "Why, God, do you allow the innocent to suffer?" question may be a direct challenge if voiced by a believer.

Yet the seeking of reasons for natural phenomena seems likely to have been the origins of both modes of thought regarding the irigin and nsture of Universe. The difference is the huge, and growing, body of corroborative evidence compared to that stagnation mentioned above. Theological investigation is inherently introspective, the number of angels on a pin's point rather than the evolution and biology of the angels and the origin of the pin.

Some of the ‘why’ brigade employed unbiased observation, studies and experimentation, (not saying they were perfect), while the others just made up explanations which could also conveniently be used for control and power. Those explanations have been refined over the centuries by some brilliant and devious minds; no wonder it has lasted so long.

Oh, I think the control and power possibly came quite early if the basic ancient psychology was anything like ours. As soon as someone realises there is any kind of fear in his, or her, fellows then that fear will be used as a tool to dominate. Certainly a lot of power juggling went on between the clergy and the rulers from early CE; Thomas a Beckett being the iconic story, with Henry VIII for afters.

Stonehenge is a fairly good example of the early blend of religion and science, woo plus seeking reality. The Moon and Sun were critical elements in existence, they were the calendar and the life giver. Recording, plotting and then predicting their motions was a real boon, wish I could meet the men who developed that instrument.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Essie Mae

  • Free to think.
  • Not Defeated by the Dark Night of the Soul
  • ****
  • Posts: 1641
  • Gender: Female
  • I Hope Uncle Bert is still my friend.
Re: The why factor.
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2018, 04:17:09 PM »
I and going to posit that there is no functional difference between the establishments of religion and scientific endeavour and that they both have their origin in "The why factor". I very much doubt that this is original but I have never posed the idea to myself in quite this way before.

Human curiosity, the need to explain, to know, is inherent and the learning curve about the nature of all physical things is exponential, up to limit of sustainability of life the growth in human population increases the "volume" of human experience and knowledge and simultaneous discovery plus replication adds confidence.

Yet religion, effectively, stagnates - "The why factor", in terms of the investigation of the natural universe, is almost antithetical to established thought. The, "Why, God, do you allow the innocent to suffer?" question may be a direct challenge if voiced by a believer.

Yet the seeking of reasons for natural phenomena seems likely to have been the origins of both modes of thought regarding the irigin and nsture of Universe. The difference is the huge, and growing, body of corroborative evidence compared to that stagnation mentioned above. Theological investigation is inherently introspective, the number of angels on a pin's point rather than the evolution and biology of the angels and the origin of the pin.

Some of the ‘why’ brigade employed unbiased observation, studies and experimentation, (not saying they were perfect), while the others just made up explanations which could also conveniently be used for control and power. Those explanations have been refined over the centuries by some brilliant and devious minds; no wonder it has lasted so long.

Oh, I think the control and power possibly came quite early if the basic ancient psychology was anything like ours. As soon as someone realises there is any kind of fear in his, or her, fellows then that fear will be used as a tool to dominate. Certainly a lot of power juggling went on between the clergy and the rulers from early CE; Thomas a Beckett being the iconic story, with Henry VIII for afters.

Stonehenge is a fairly good example of the early blend of religion and science, woo plus seeking reality. The Moon and Sun were critical elements in existence, they were the calendar and the life giver. Recording, plotting and then predicting their motions was a real boon, wish I could meet the men who developed that instrument.

Me too. The general population must have thought these people’s, (might have been women too!), predictive abilities supernatural.
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. Wm Shakespeare


Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Wears a Colander Hat for Special Occasions
  • *****
  • Posts: 6607
  • Gender: Male
Re: The why factor.
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2018, 04:26:16 PM »
I and going to posit that there is no functional difference between the establishments of religion and scientific endeavour and that they both have their origin in "The why factor". I very much doubt that this is original but I have never posed the idea to myself in quite this way before.

Human curiosity, the need to explain, to know, is inherent and the learning curve about the nature of all physical things is exponential, up to limit of sustainability of life the growth in human population increases the "volume" of human experience and knowledge and simultaneous discovery plus replication adds confidence.

Yet religion, effectively, stagnates - "The why factor", in terms of the investigation of the natural universe, is almost antithetical to established thought. The, "Why, God, do you allow the innocent to suffer?" question may be a direct challenge if voiced by a believer.

Yet the seeking of reasons for natural phenomena seems likely to have been the origins of both modes of thought regarding the irigin and nsture of Universe. The difference is the huge, and growing, body of corroborative evidence compared to that stagnation mentioned above. Theological investigation is inherently introspective, the number of angels on a pin's point rather than the evolution and biology of the angels and the origin of the pin.

Some of the ‘why’ brigade employed unbiased observation, studies and experimentation, (not saying they were perfect), while the others just made up explanations which could also conveniently be used for control and power. Those explanations have been refined over the centuries by some brilliant and devious minds; no wonder it has lasted so long.

Oh, I think the control and power possibly came quite early if the basic ancient psychology was anything like ours. As soon as someone realises there is any kind of fear in his, or her, fellows then that fear will be used as a tool to dominate. Certainly a lot of power juggling went on between the clergy and the rulers from early CE; Thomas a Beckett being the iconic story, with Henry VIII for afters.

Stonehenge is a fairly good example of the early blend of religion and science, woo plus seeking reality. The Moon and Sun were critical elements in existence, they were the calendar and the life giver. Recording, plotting and then predicting their motions was a real boon, wish I could meet the men who developed that instrument.

Me too. The general population must have thought these people’s, (might have been women too!), predictive abilities supernatural.

Quote
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic
Arthur C Clarke
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.