If you have any friends and family who are struggling with the dissonance they experience trying to reconcile their Christian faith with modern scientific ideas, logic and reason, my book will help them.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CTY5B9S3
I even go further, creating the concept of Eidotheosophy, a philosophical social science created to help believers to express and understand their faith through logic, reason, and facts based evidence. I think any of you could understand that if we cannot bring believers into the modern age of logic, reason, and facts, they will continue to try and drag us back into the dark ages (and worse).
What is demonstrative of the need to bring believers into the modern age, is the enabling of Israel as a nation to engage in genocide, an atrocity they have committed before, like with the Canaanites, who turned out to be ancient Israelites.
This is important in my opinion, but also has a certain ebb and flow. I think key here is allowing / encouraging them to evolve. This only seems to work best if coupled with persuasion. Having the argument that that appeals to them is a key in my opinion.
@enduser Research shows that persuasion and rational discourse is not effective against anyone who cannot be reasonable, or abandons reason. Research also shows that religious people with core beliefs central to their ideology will disregard reason, logic, and facts-based evidence when such things contradict those core beliefs.
If they can never resolve those contradictions, they can never become rational or reasonable, and under the sway of the sources of those core beliefs, including sources that are actively malignant, they will continue to become more and more detached from objective reality.
Eidtheosophy is a concept of a philosophical, social science, that allows believers to approach their beliefs through reason, logic, and facts-based evidence. Once their beliefs align with reason, logic, and facts-based evidence, they have their ability to reason restored, because such no longer contradicts their core beliefs.
Can be a dangerous idea it has high chance for mission creep and over generalization
I think your frame maybe accurate but it rationality and religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive. In fact this is a dogmatic position held amongst some in science.
More accurately one falsely miss attribute your perspectives to the that of someone else without understanding logic interfaces with experience and isn’t understood homogeneously amongst others nor useful beyond context.
If you understand the replication crisis in psychology you will likely agree this has to do with a fundamental human trait. That is we are far less definable and far more whimsical in our beliefs and how they effect our actions that many would like to believe. The same person could be impulsive at times while the same person could also act well within laws at times. In short we game everything out so once anyone suspects a game is a foot they can become less rigid. This means they could not be aware a study is taking place but understand some sort of game is a foot. This will adulterate the outcome and isn’t scientific.
Sure, is there a specific part that you are having trouble with?
@enduser Just say what you are trying to say. Use easy to understand, everyday language, as complex language loses pretty much all meaning without the proper context. Start with a simple summary of the central idea that you are trying to express. Expand upon the idea by explaing the rational and logic whereby you have come to believe the central idea. Cover how what you are trying to express relates to the prior ideas in the discussion that you are trying to address. Optionally, present evidence, or present research consensus that supports your idea. Summarize and optionallly, present the takeaway idea that you want people to derive from your idea.
I suppose I would ask you to tell me how I didn’t do that?
seems to be an offer to argue minutiae.
@enduser Ok, this will take a bit of time. I will write out in long form what it sounds like you are trying to say, and then you can explain how accurate what it sounds you are saying matches what you mean.
Science isn’t immune to capitalistic pressure. Journals select for publishing over accuracy and they don’t seem value replication study publishing as they do novel research. In short even science leans to the green. Researchers in psychology have outlined a systemic reproducibility problems here is an explanation:
(warning this has to do with ESP research and if this puts you off the data you maybe contributing to the problem)
Industry capture and market value in research has lead to p-hacking. Publish or parish mindset. Part of the problem is failure to expect erroneous result and another part is a failure to publish null results.
I think others scientific fields seem to be blissfully unaware of these problems. Or more accurately think they could be a small problem in their field. While that maybe correct it isn’t a small problem for psychology. They then in turn place to much importance on erroneous data. This desire to then place a “present research consensus” may be degraded due erroneous conclusions.
@enduser This is what it seems like you are saying:
Objective reality is a dangerous idea that has a high chance of shifting objectives during the course of a time, often resulting in an unplanned long-term commitment, leading to to make excessively vague or general statements about something or someone.
I think your basic structure that underlies or supports a system, concept, or text might be accurate, but the quality of being based on clear thought and reason, or of making decisions based on clear thought and reason (incomplete statement ends here) and religious beliefs are not mutually exclusive.
In fact this is a position characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts held amongst some in science (this is literally the point of science, finding and expressing facts).
More accurately one (who is the subject here) falsely to attribute wrongly your perspectives to the that of someone else (who is this?) without understanding hardware description modules as an interface between the communication interface and your logic language with experience and isn’t understood as culturally homogeneous amongst others (who is this?) nor useful beyond the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs.
If you understand the science of psychology has come under criticism because a number of research findings do not replicate, process of repeating research to determine the extent to which findings generalize across time and across situations you will likely agree this has to do with a fundamental human trait (how do we know this? is it your conclusion?).
We act or behaving in a capricious manner (what leads you to this conclusion?). Many believe we do not.
The same person can be predictable or unpredictable (the scientific problem in psychology of unknown and/or untestable confounding factors seems relevant here to whatever you are trying to say).
In short we turn everything into a game so once anyone suspects someone is playing a game they can relax (why? what makes you thing that people in general do this?).
This means they could not be aware a study is taking place but understand that sme sort of game is being played (one should never rely on unfinished, unpublished, or make-believe studies).
This will corrupt, debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance or element to the outcome and isn’t scientific.
Your entire post here is wildly off-topic.
It actually explains your problems with my framing well. You seem to assert a balance that doesn’t exist.
Science’s religion is based in greed not some guy who got crucified or some such.
@enduser As it appears that you are just engaging in Gish Gallop Rhetoric, I am going to remind you that you are entirely UNQUALIFIED to make any qualified judgements on Eidotheosophy, as you have not read about it, and you do not know what it is, and you have no frame of reference to make any of the judgements you are pronouncing on it. If you are just going to engage in Gish Gallop Rhetoric, you already know how I am going to handle that.
Just to jump in with a point, the pattern of politics increasingly taking a look over the shoulder, (eg make america great again), is typical of a failing civilization.
A society shares some stories, and the convincing stories affect politics. But when the reality of the environment casts doubt on current stories (eg, hope and change, bidenomics, GDP=economy, etc), then the stories which find order amidst chaos by appealing to a more secure past environment gain salience.
I suppose my point is mostly that the types of crisis were facing, (such as climate change, information overload, economic unstustainability, etc.), are in a systemic feedback with the psychosocial reactions (eg backfire effect, fundamentalism, cultishness); the crisis are how aspects of this systemic failure are caused together systemically (ie, to be clear, literally speaking, we don’t have only a climate crisis, nor only economic crisis, nor only reason crisis, nor any other specific crisis, except for the one whole interconnected systemic crisis, of which each individual crisis is a narrow aspect).
So to the point of the original post, the lack of reason and logic is a symptom and a cause of the complex issue. So synthesizing the individuals suffering with the environmental factors in feedback with such collective suffering should probably enable a more wholistic and effective strategy for helping the narrow aspect of the larger interconnected issue. More concretely, I would not only directly address the collective suffering from lack of reason, but also address the environmental factors in part enabling/causing the collective suffering, together.
At least that is how I would look at it. Hopefully that made sense.
@jared123456 It was a little convoluted, but I understood what you are saying. The point of Eidotheosophy is recognizing that the willful lack of reasonability and logical sense among a significant portion of the world (2.38 billion christians) has a significant and systematically harmful effect on everyone. Eidotheosophy (wiki here: https://eidotheosophy.miraheze.org/) is a concept as a tool that will be a useful strategy to address that ignorance.
Eidotheosophy didn’t really come up with anything when I searched it, sorry. Maybe if the language gains popularity I will get to know it. I have know opinion about it really I am telling you why you can’t really offer our original frame without research to scrutinize.
If you are familiar with the reproducibility crisis you would understand why that is prima facie . You should attempt offer a robust amount of data to support your views. Otherwise I will assert my views as you do yours.
Gish Gallup Rhetoric! Weird how https://eidotheosophy.info is the first google result for eidoptheosophy.
Sounds good to me 
I suppose my subtext is that I don’t have much confidence in reversing the trends until we can strategize to use the trend to the advantage of changing the environment which is causing the trend. In other words, use the systemic nature of the problem to solve the problem.
Which, now that I put it into words, makes me understand better my previous feelings / fears about an eventual authoritarian leader to combine the populist right and left.
Suffering is funny. It really has to do with that quote about tragedy. There are two tragedies in life one is not getting what you want, and the other is getting it.