Does religion and ideologies poison science?

[Anonymous No.10884435]

[Anonymous No.10884466]

>>10884435
no, it's more the other way around. based scientists help people to free themselves of fantasy/delusion/ignorance

[Anonymous No.10884467]

Bump

[Anonymous No.10884500]

It's the opposite. Anti-sexual religions deeply elevate minds to a higher level, and I say this as an atheist. Otherwise, people are just useless cumbrains, not interested in anything but masturbating and sex at the end of the day and these processes are always on their minds, and the more they are satiated, the stronger they grow in force. Newton probably would have been fucking prostitutes all day instead if he wasn't religious. This is also the reason why many monks and priests throughout the centuries were some of the world's foremost scientists.

[Anonymous No.10884512]

>>10884500
Virgin coping is painfully obvious and depressing. Have sex.

[Anonymous No.10884513]

>>10884500
Based

[Anonymous No.10884516]

>>10884512
You are proof if this pic, i am sorry for you

[Anonymous No.10884519]

>>10884512
If I was coping, I would be masturbating to internet porn? That is the best substitute for sex afterall. I've had numerous girlfriends. Masturbation and sex both have the same prolactogenic effects and make me unmotivated, tired and hypersexual at the end of the day. Sorry friend, you are NOT going to make it.

[Anonymous No.10884520]

>>10884516
Cope. Have sex.

[Anonymous No.10884521]

>>10884520
>t.low IQ cumbrain

[Anonymous No.10884536]

>>10884519
Cope. Have sex. Pretending you have doesn’t fool anyone.

[Anonymous No.10884541]

>>10884521
Cope. Your attempts at insulting people remind me of kindergarteners calling eachother poophead. It’s just funny.

[Anonymous No.10884551]

>>10884435
Yes the ideology of cultural marxism prevents us from genetically categorizing humans.

[Anonymous No.10884558]

>>10884541
Yet it's true, your care only for sex, you also fall for another shitty meme.
Even if i tried i coudn't estimate your IQ as average or higher

[Anonymous No.10884566]

>>10884541
Kindergartners at least have agency over their mind and aren't slaves to their sensual urges yet. Learning was much more enjoyable then than as an adult. I stopped reading recreationally whenever I became sexually active in my teenage years. Really makes you think.

[Anonymous No.10884567]

>>10884558
>Yet it's true, your care only for sex

Wrong. I also like history, fiction, engineering, science, music, drugs, and eating food. I haven’t figured out how to combine all of those things with sex yet unfortunately.

>Even if i tried i coudn't estimate your IQ as average or higher

I estimate your IQ as negative five. No one gives a shit what you “estimate” people’s IQ as LMAO

[Anonymous No.10884575]

>>10884567
Ok, prove your knowlegde engineering or GTFO

[Anonymous No.10884576]

>>10884575
*about

[Anonymous No.10884585]

>>10884566
>Kindergartners at least have agency over their mind

People are minds, so this assertion is incoherent.

>and aren't slaves to their sensual urges yet

Yes they are, silly. So are you. You just pretend not to be because you’re deeply insecure and want some way to appear superior to others.

>Learning was much more enjoyable then than as an adult.

Yes that’s how human aging works, good job.

>I stopped reading recreationally whenever I became sexually active in my teenage years. Really makes you think

I started itching once when I saw a picture of Superman. Really makes you think. Not only is your personal anecdote a personal anecdote, it is contradicted by others, and you want people to make conclusions of causality from it? /pol/ sounds more your style.

[Anonymous No.10884588]

>>10884575
Polyethylene and polypropylene are the most used plastics. Learned that last week.

[Anonymous No.10884591]

>>10884585
I am superior to you.

[Anonymous No.10884593]

>>10884566
I bet the reason you stopped reading was more to do with the internet becoming more powerful and addictive than becoming sexually active. People in the past before the internet had greater levels of sexual activity than modern people but still read more novels and such than people nowadays. The internet is a curse and evil thing upon our species.

[Anonymous No.10884594]

>>10884588
Very deep knowledge

[Anonymous No.10884596]

>>10884591
Cool. No one cares

[Anonymous No.10884601]

>>10884512
>>10884520
>>10884536
>>10884541
Are you really that insecure that someone is giving people advice that they shouldn't become addicted to masturbation? You're the one who is insecure and projecting, not the other guy.

[Anonymous No.10884604]

Shut the fuck up and answer OP's question!

[Anonymous No.10884605]

>>10884601
Samefag spreader of falsehoods. “Don’t get addicted to masturbation” is not a synonym of “sex is bad and makes you dumb lol”.

[Anonymous No.10884610]

>>10884585
>People are minds, so this assertion is incoherent.
An ultimately religious viewpoint that views consciousness as immaterial, rather than a product of the brain, which is indeed comprised of manifold and often competing parts, some much more primitive than others, which some by evolutionary design have the power to decrease prefrontal neurotransmission undermining the agency that was mentioned. The rest of your post is a pathetic (no you!), and really is poor, even for this website and should belong and reddit. Notwithstanding, you take this so personally that people telling you that sexual frequency may have consequences and you go berserk. Return to the vomit, cumbrain.

[Anonymous No.10884612]

>>10884605
I'm not the same anon retard, and that guy was clearly talking about masturbation which is why he posted an image of porn addiction and the effects of it on the brain. In terms of the process though, if anyone were to have sex in the amount that someone addicted to pornography and masturbation would have them, it would cause the same effects to the brain, it's just no one has that much sex as it's not really possible unless you're Wilt Chamberlain or something.
Stop being insecure.

[Anonymous No.10884619]

>>10884605
This is /r/nofap retardation (dude masturbation bad but sex is good!). Judging by most of the population, we can conclude both behaviors are synonymous and translatable to one another in terms of physiological effects.

[Anonymous No.10884624]

>>10884610
>An ultimately religious viewpoint

Nope

>that views consciousness as immaterial, rather than a product of the brain

That’s a false dichotomy, and no.
The rest of your post is cope, and belongs on r/braincels.

[Anonymous No.10884626]

>>10884624
>Nope

[Anonymous No.10884630]

>>10884626
>haha I posted the meme face look mom

there’s nothing to say to you if you’re so stupid that you can’t tell the difference between the brain and the mind.

[Anonymous No.10884632]

>>10884630
>my mind isn't subject to evolutionary mechanisms compelling me to procreate
I don't even have a brainlet.jpg stupid enough for this one.

[Anonymous No.10884636]

>>10884632
Yes it is, but it’s not the brain. It’s a process carried out by it. Saying you have agency over your mind is tautological because “you” and “mind” are synonyms.

[Anonymous No.10884638]

Shut the fuck up and answer OP's question!
2

[Anonymous No.10884641]

>>10884604
>>10884638
Answer: No, religion and ideology do not hold back science. That doesn't even make any sense. Empiricism is itself an ideology, and it's not necessarily incompatible with organized religions.

[Anonymous No.10884657]

>>10884641
Thank you good man!

[Anonymous No.10884712]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

[Anonymous No.10885232]

>>10884435

What the religious leaders want is to make sure their flocks (genes) are cared for, and that they continue to have purpose, and that they will continue to support their families.

If someone was able to unify all science, that person would be most wise to talk explicitly about "religion" and the "churches" continued purpose as a source of heritage and community. That would piss a lot of Sam Harris type scientists off, but it would make the transition from superstition to pure reason MUCH smoother.

Simply, Scripture can be viewed as a parable and poetry, and people should continue to congregate and pay tithes to their church community center the same way they do to, say, a YMCA.

Church has a great and valuable purpose, even in an era of virtually total understanding. In fact, rumor has it that some have even achieved this near total underdstanding and are just waiting for society to catch up so they dont get martyred for revealing it.

[Anonymous No.10885243]

>>10884520
t. low iq

[Anonymous No.10885253]

>>10884619
>This is /r/nofap retardation (dude masturbation bad but sex is good!).
Nofap doesn't mean no masturbating forever. It means quitting your porn addiction, and the only way to do that is to stop any sexual activity (no porn and masturbating), for a few months, a so called hard reboot.

[Anonymous No.10885254]

>>10885243
>>10885232
>>10884712
>>10884657
>>10884641
>>10884638
>>10884636
>>10884632
>>10884630
>>10884626
>>10884624
>>10884619
>>10884612
>>10884610
>>10884605
>>10884604
>>10884601
>>10884596
>>10884594
>>10884593
>>10884591
>>10884588
>>10884585
>>10884576
>>10884575
>>10884567
>>10884566
>>10884558
>>10884551
>>10884541
>>10884536
>>10884521
>>10884520
>>10884519
>>10884516
>>10884513
>>10884512
>>10884500
>>10884467
>>10884466
>>10884435

Brainlets.

[Anonymous No.10885299]

>>10885253
Thanks /r/nofap and reddit! Surely NoFap®, established 2011, and its epic userbase of Fapstronauts™ , where the best opinion is decided democratically by upboats, knows more than thousands of years of advice from philosophers, physicians, scientists, authors who advocated strict abstinence and thought any loss of semen was harmful.

[Anonymous No.10885329]

>>10884512
>>10884520
>>10884536

[Anonymous No.10885376]

>>10884435
>Does religion and ideologies poison science?
Yes. Positivism. Materialism. Skepticism. These are the poison in the actual scientific paradigm.

Anyway, Science is not one thing. Science is a term that integrates all the scientific disciplines, in other words those disciplines which follow the scientific method.

Many people conceive Science as a whole body of knowledge which can even substitute Ethics, Religion, Social Studies... Those people tend to be arrogant and not sensitive to other non scientific disciplines like Philosophy, History Art...

Science relies on language, and language relies on metaphysics. The underlying metaphysical concepts in every written explanation is the poison you are looking for.

PS. great question OP

[Anonymous No.10885384]

Religion and ideologies? Yes.
God? No, not at all.

[Anonymous No.10885390]

>>10884466
>no, it's more the other way around. based scientists help people to free themselves of fantasy/delusion/ignorance
Newton was an alchemist. HE was familiar with the Occult. That would train his cognitive skills in ways you are not familiar with, giving him dark and insightful ways of perceiving reality. Another alchemist? Boyle. He would describe the behaviour of ideal gases. Also Lavoiser... Watson did LSD and discovered the DNA geometry.

Nowadays Science is soulless because of non-metaphysical faggots like you.

[Anonymous No.10885448]

>>10884435
Yes, racism is the most obvious example. Making hereditary traits and adaptation to the environment popsci almost 100 years ago is still reaping lives but now because the facts are completely ignored and taboo.

[Anonymous No.10885452]

>>10885390
epic magictard cope

[Anonymous No.10885569]

>>10885376
>skepticism
>poison in the actual scientific paradigm
Wat.

Skepticism maintains reality is not fully describable (what is isn't fully expressed through what was), therefore everything language-related is a model. In other words, it is the very reason the notion of model is even distinguished.

If the "actual" scientific paradigm you entertain doesn't distinguish the notion of model, then I don't want anything to do with your scientific paradigm.

[Anonymous No.10885627]

Skepticism is an ideology, and usually comes with a certain attitude. People who excessively read something like James Randi become inquisitive pricks who can't argue honestly, because Skepticism has clouded their reasoning
>everything language-related is a model.
I agree on that
>If the "actual" scientific paradigm you entertain doesn't distinguish the notion of model, then I don't want anything to do with your scientific paradigm.
I am just using the same word OP used: "poison". It is true that Skepticism has poisoned Science. That doesn't necessarily mean it is inherently bad for science. It could be useful for i.e distinguishing the notion of model.

Skepticism as any other ideology can introduce a BIAS in the exercise of science.

[Anonymous No.10885630]

>>10885569
Skepticism is an ideology, and usually comes with a certain attitude. People who excessively read something like James Randi become inquisitive pricks who can't argue honestly, because Skepticism has clouded their reasoning
>everything language-related is a model.
I agree on that
>If the "actual" scientific paradigm you entertain doesn't distinguish the notion of model, then I don't want anything to do with your scientific paradigm.
I am just using the same word OP used: "poison". It is true that Skepticism has poisoned Science. That doesn't necessarily mean it is inherently bad for science. It could be useful for i.e distinguishing the notion of model.

Skepticism as any other ideology can introduce a BIAS in the exercise of science.

[Anonymous No.10885637]

>>10884435
Big bang theory was proposed by a catholic so...

[Anonymous No.10885645]

>>10885630
Skepticism (as a belief descriptions in general are non-exhaustive) is no ideology, it is common sense. It literally separates genuine researchers from fucks who seek only to confirm their biases in order to extend their influence.

[Anonymous No.10885649]

>>10885637
the big bang theory was never really accepted as mischief as it is now until Alan Guth the big atheist fixed up its big issues

[Anonymous No.10885669]

>>10885630
In other words, skepticism is anti-ideological stance since it recognizes literally any ideology, ANY PARTICULAR CURRENT INTERPRETATION OF SKEPTICISM INCLUDED, as a model and a subject for, best case scenario, elaboration. It is a belief your beliefs are transient and temporary, and a subject to change in order to accommodate new sensual experiences you have acquired since first forming those beliefs. In other words, it's a stance that claims it is for beliefs to fit actual reality, not for actual reality to fit beliefs.

[Anonymous No.10885682]

>>10885645
>>10885669
Actually, come to think of it, I have a nitpick with that.
It seems to me to hinge upon my being able to distinguish "actual reality" around me from "myself having beliefs", moreover, to factor the influence of "myself having beliefs" I exert over said "actual reality" by merely being there and making observations, from said "actual reality".

In other words it heavily hinges upon the concept of "observation" as the type of interaction that doesn't change that which is observed in any significant enough "way", upon sort of your ability to isolate yourself from the circumstances you investigate, upon you being able to make yourself a non-entity under current circumstances. Sort of a "non-interacting interaction".

Hm.

[Anonymous No.10885692]

>>10884551
Mein gott, this is pure ideology

[Anonymous No.10885714]

>>10885452
Epic brainlet cope
There has literally never been and currently is no major scientist or mathematician who isn't either religious or a psychonaut, and there never will be one either.

[Anonymous No.10885717]

>>10884435
You do realize science was borne from religion right?

[Anonymous No.10886924]

>>10885717
This is true.

[Anonymous No.10886935]

>>10885717
it really wasn't, natural philosophy was the work of mostly reclusive philosofags, astronomy among autistic mesopotamian and egyptian priests sure but there was a very real motivation in creating more accurate calendars for agricultural production though of course one could argue the geomantic and astrological underpinnings of their astronomy were almost if not as important. Still Greek natural philosophy was not a state/priestly affair in the way that it was in Europe and even then, autism, isolated monastics were the drivers of that not so much the promethean spirit of the Catholic church which while certainly not as anti-intellectual as portrayed by fedoras and secular media was not at all interested in mechanics or the life sciences. Looking even further back the most primitive kind of nature knowledge found among hunter gatherers like the khoi, aborigines and paleolithic sibero-americans was hardly "religious" more embedded within a nexus of symbolic ideation, mysticism, animism and general cultural knowledge pertinent to survival and mainly the tasks of hunting and gathering. The "scientific method" as we think of it today absolutely did not come from religious institutes by any means.

[Anonymous No.10886940]

>>10885717
true though

[Anonymous No.10887065]

>>10885717
Are you implying that since one came from the other (arguable) that they're somehow equal? I find this shallow and pedantic.