I maybe completely off the mark on this one but I get the distinct feeling that parents love it when their kids are smart and simply go bonkers when they're smarter. — TheMadFool

Yes, your comment is an equivocation, though an innocent one. :smile:

Yes, your comment is an equivocation, though an innocent one. :smile: — JerseyFlight

Equivocation? How so? Was God, despite how things turned out between him and Adam and Eve, not pleased with his creation? Again, I could be mistaken about this but don't inventors draw a great deal of satisfaction from their inventions?

Equivocation? How so? — TheMadFool

The topic here is the question, 'Is Technology a New Religion,' you are talking about people deriving pleasure or satisfaction from religion.

Technology has some religious aspects on it, such as rituals, as checking your mail every morning. that may be any function, or action. Myths are also big part of technology, such as "technology will destroy the world", or any conspiracy theories related to technology, and it causes. Internet works like totem, where people gather around, and spent time together. Also technology fills the conception of holy, and profane, for many technology gives amazing feelings, when one example gets newest brand of latest products.

Its very obvious to define "technology" as religion, when every aspect fits the major "theories" of religion.

This perspective begins from the premise that religions are culturally formed belief systems. — JerseyFlight

From this perspective, we can say God is a human creation, just like technology is a human creation. But I think what makes something a religion is the structure of the belief system, and I don't see that similarity between the structure of the belief systems relating to God, and the structure of the belief systems relating to technology. We sort of take technology for granted instead of being in awe of it, as you describe, and religions do not teach us to take God for granted, that's what faith is concerned with, things we cannot take for granted.. So what I see in the human relationship with technology is a lack of religion.

One of the characteristics of most religions is attention to the meaning of human existence and concern over the end of life. It takes a bit of a stretch to see that in the current interest in technology. Regards, stay safe 'n well.

What I have learned, having had many exchanges, is that the act of formally defining things is often the mark of a novice dialectician. — JerseyFlight

You are incorrect. Logical thinking requires solid definitions. It is often the novice who needs to be coached into formally defining their terms. Logic is deductive thinking, and requires the elimination of as much inductive influence as possible. Ill defined terms are inductive thinking, and lead to muddled arguments. They are usually arguments to defend emotional thinking.

That being said, it is not novice to not want to define your terms if you are merely asking for some inductive fun thinking. But if you've been telling yourself people who are trying to have a logical conversation with you that they are a novice for wanting to define their terms? That is either novice thinking, or a lame excuse when you are not clever or capable enough to answer their request JerseyFlight.

Wrong, I am incompetent at using formal logic and therefore it is useless, I refuse to see it any other way.

Wrong, I am incompetent at using formal logic and therefore it is useless, I refuse to see it any other way. — Judaka

Hi Judaka, I stated the unwillingness to define one's definitions is the mark of a novice, or those who cannot arise to the occasion. There is nothing wrong with this at all. That doesn't really counter my point.

But I do want to clarify, it does not require formal logic. It is merely taking the time to clarify what people mean when they mention a word. A common problem among even intermediate thinkers is not clarifying their positions, leaving certain things implicit in the argument that they expect the other person to know. This is not necessarily malicious, but can lead to unintentional straw man arguments, which basically means talking past one another.

I'll give a little formal logic to show what I mean, but don't worry, its nothing crazy.

Lets say you use a term like religion that we'll call, "A".

Now when I mean religion, it means as a base that it is an organized structure in which one or more people look to an authority figure for guidance in how to live their life.

That entire definition of "authority figure yada yada..." can equal "B".

So when I speak about religion, you know that A = B.

But someone might have a different definition of religion. Lets say another poster believed that religion meant, "One or more people who have a cultural awe of some thing". We can call this, C. In their mind, A = C.

Now if these two people talk but do not clarify what each means by "A" (religion), then they will each be implicitly talking about something different. I would be talking implicitly about B, and the other person would be talking implicitly about C even though we are both using the same word, A.

If these implicit differences never come up, both people will likely be confused and angry at the other person's reasoning. If I'm talking about B, it may not apply to C. If they're talking about C, it might not apply to B.

While I stated that intermediates sometimes neglect this, people new to philosophy struggle with expressing the implicit definitions tied to their statement. Its like an ice berg. Often times general language will be used by a novice with the expectation that the listener can see under the water, and observe the rest of the ice berg. Either that or people will intentionally use obtuse or complex language in the hopes that they will sound smarter than they are, and attempt to avoid the need for clarity. More experienced debaters and philosophers, who are honestly trying to get to the truth of the matter, understand that the rest of the ice berg needs to be revealed, and try to tighten and clarify their language.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being a novice, and I am not claiming you need to study formal logic. But if you want to improve your arguments and discussions, a solid fundamental you can work on is to work on communicating the lower half of your iceberg in your argument. Once you've gained some experience here, also try to be generous with the person you are discussing with in too. Try to look for their lower half of the iceberg, and see if you can get them to voice the implicit arguments they may not realize they are doing as well.

I've lost all faith in sarcasm over the internet.

I've lost all faith in sarcasm over the internet. — Judaka

Ha ha! Its hard to know what is serious, and what is not without tone. I've made the mistake of not taking people seriously before, and accidently offended them. Oh well, I would rather err on the side of me taking something too seriously instead of not enough. =P

Its very obvious to define "technology" as religion, when every aspect fits the major "theories" of religion. — batsushi7

I think one of the main things for me is its status of reverence in the lives of individuals and cultures.

But I think what makes something a religion is the structure of the belief system, and I don't see that similarity between the structure of the belief systems relating to God, and the structure of the belief systems relating to technology. — Metaphysician Undercover

While technology is free of a formalized, dogmatic structure humans do have beliefs regarding its value, but like I mentioned above, I think what warrants it to the category of a kind of modern religion is man's reverence for it.

So what I see in the human relationship with technology is a lack of religion. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think this is how an archaic religion would view the question, that is, that the new religion does not qualify as being a religion because it's lacking the attributes of the previous religion.

Some people are so entangled in their worship of religion (not only of their god, but of the general idea of religion) that they can't divorce themselves of the thought. Yet intelligent life can exist without religion. Only the meek in spirit can't see that. But then again, they shalt inherit the Earth. Not a bad deal.

You are incorrect. Logical thinking requires solid definitions. — Philosophim

Yes, it does require some definitions, but you fail to grasp my point. What you are talking about is the process of novice dialectics. This is proven quite easily, when two knowledgeable philosophers come together to discourse they do not define every term, because they are not coming to the conversation without any prior understanding. Further, if you reason this way you will not get very far in knowledge. I can easily play what I call, 'the narrowing game,' but I try not to do it because I am trying to get somewhere in the conversation, I am not merely trying to win. You are, in fact, already practicing what I say, unless I'm mistaken and you define every conjunction? Of course you don't and neither does the other person because you have a basic understanding of these symbols. It's the same way with more advanced dialectics, this act of presupposing, of shared meaning, is how knowledge unfolds through dialectic.

I usually do not discourse with novice dialecticians. I don't have time for it. They would be better served by seeking out someone like yourself. As I already said: 'I'm not saying this should never be done, sometimes it's forced by the context.'

Yes, it does require some definitions, but you fail to grasp my point. What you are talking about is the process of novice dialectics. This is proven quite easily, when two knowledgeable philosophers come together to discourse they do not define every term, because they are not coming to the conversation without any prior understanding. Further, if you reason this way you will not get very far in knowledge. I can easily play what I call, 'the narrowing game,' but I try not to do it because I am trying to get somewhere in the conversation, I am not merely trying to win. You are, in fact, already practicing what I say, unless I'm mistaken and you define every conjunction? Of course you don't and neither does the other person because you have a basic understanding of these symbols. It's the same way with more advanced dialectics, this act of presupposing, of shared meaning, is how knowledge unfolds through dialectic. — JerseyFlight

But surely one can be a novice dialectic when it comes to one particular subject and a well versed one when it comes to another. No?

If a philosopher of mind and a philosopher of religion meet to have a discussion, would not one of them require some definitions to be able to continue discourse?

And here im talking about the generally accepted definitions of things but often others have their own definitions and it becomes very confusing if someone doesnt ask for a concrete description.

Or am I completely of the mark here?

But surely one can be a novice dialectic when it comes to one particular subject and a well versed one when it comes to another. — DoppyTheElv

Yes. We are all in this predicament no matter how intelligent or well read we might be, the world of knowledge has surpassed the ability of the individual mind.

If a philosopher of mind and a philosopher of religion meet to have a discussion, would not one of them require some definitions to be able to continue discourse? — DoppyTheElv

Yes. But this begs that question, why would I attempt to have a conversation on the philosophy of mind (with a person who is learned in this area) without any prior knowledge?

What I said is quite accurate friend... even now you do not need a definition for every word I use, and what does this allow us to do? It allows us to communicate at a deeper level.

Yes. But this begs that question, why would I attempt to have a conversation on the philosophy of mind (with a person who is learned in this area) without any prior knowledge?

What I said is quite accurate friend... even now you do not need a definition for every word I use, and what does this allow us to do? It allows us to communicate at a deeper level. — JerseyFlight

I didnt mean it as an argument my apologies. I simply wanted to get a clearer picture of what you were saying. I agree with your stance. Thanks for the answer!

I didnt mean it as an argument my apologies. I simply wanted to get a clearer picture of what you were saying. — DoppyTheElv

It takes time to learn this about dialectics, but it also takes time to be able to put this into practice because one has to gain some knowledge in order to be able to discourse with knowledge. It's understandable that this approach would be contested, it's certainly counter-intuitive to rationality. I can't tell you exactly when I realized this in discourse, but I remember realizing that I should just try to reply to a response without going into the question of definition, I thought I had a basic idea of what the other person was saying, the surprise is that the discourse then begins to move. However, like I already mentioned, there are times when this is not possible. People are dishonest (as well as subconscious) and they try to smuggle in premises, this cannot be allowed, especially if much is at stake, if we are talking about Christian morality, for example. Christians are notorious for asking loaded questions, which means one cannot have advanced dialectical discourses with them, one seldom makes it past the point of arguments over definition. Demanding a definition for every term is the mark of a novice dialectician.

No matter how good technology gets, it won't solve the core mysteries of existence: Why are we here? What's the point of this existence? What's the true nature of reality? As long as those questions remain unanswered, people will turn to religion.

No matter how good technology gets, it won't solve the core mysteries of existence: Why are we here? What's the point of this existence? What's the true nature of reality? As long as those questions remain unanswered, people will turn to religion. — RogueAI

Strange you say this, because people are only turning to organized religion in a superficial sense. Are you really suggesting that people will choose the comfort of the ideal of God over Netflix? Come on son, that world is dying. Further, religion does not answer the questions you posed, it merely pretends to answer them.

Strange you say this, because people are only turning to organized religion in a superficial sense.

Some people are superficial. Some people also get very deep into religion.

Are you really suggesting that people will choose the comfort of the ideal of God over Netflix?

Why do you think it's either/or? Religious people watch Netflix. It doesn't make them any less religious.

Come on son, that world is dying.

The percent of people who identify atheist/agnostic has remained pretty flat over the years: 2% were atheists in 2009. 4% in 2019. If religion is dying, it's a slow death.
https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/pf_10-17-19_rdd-update-new3/

Further, religion does not answer the questions you posed, it merely pretends to answer them.

Sure, but science is incapable of answering the questions I brought up. It doesn't even pretend to. Into that vacuum steps religion. I don't see that changing, no matter what we invent.

I don't see that changing, no matter what we invent. — RogueAI

The true nature of reality is that we are not supposed to be here

The true nature of reality is that we are not supposed to be here — Gregory

As usual, an interesting, original comment. Friend, I hope you just keep on being you.

The universe is certainly hostile to the life that we are, on such an overabundant level that it's hard to see how anyone could argue that this universe was made for the kind of life that we are. Most of this planet is not even habitable for our species.

Thanks again. Society is obsessed with photos and mirrors. There is no proof these have any relationship to reality if they differ even slightly from what we see with our eyeballs in the flesh. We are primarily what others are see when they look at us

Society is obsessed with photos and mirrors. — Gregory

Things that fall under the heading of technology, at least photos. Interesting, technology allows us to worship ourselves, Christianity did the same, it just did it through proxy, that is, 'mankind is so great that God made everything for him, even killed himself for this golden species.' Tremendous egoism and narcissism disguised as humility.

Maybe this is the real culprit behind religion, how well it allows us to validate our own importance? If this is the case, no religion has even come close to technology in this sense.

This is proven quite easily, when two knowledgeable philosophers come together to discourse they do not define every term, because they are not coming to the conversation without any prior understanding. — JerseyFlight

Jersey, I have a master's in philosophy. You have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to show other wise. What are your credentials? Do you have a source that backs your claim?
See my reply to Judaka to understand why defining terms in discussion is a fundamental of logical discourse.

unless I'm mistaken and you define every conjunction? — JerseyFlight

No, that's not what I stated, and you know this. I asked you to clarify the a key word in your topic so I could better understand the context you were speaking in. You retreated.

It's the same way with more advanced dialectics, this act of presupposing, of shared meaning, is how knowledge unfolds through dialectic. — JerseyFlight

Yes, like when a person asks you, "So when your topic is religion, what do you mean by religion?" you clarify. Its called having a conversation.

I usually do not discourse with novice dialecticians. — JerseyFlight

Jersey, man, you might want to examine yourself first. Your "proof" of two philosophers conversing is nothing solid. You retreat from an incredibly basic request to clarify the term you were using and attack my character instead of attacking the argument. These are all novice moves bud.

Further, I have a masters degree with a focus on epistemology. Do you see me going around with my nose in the air thinking that "I'm better than all of these novices"? No. That's not what a professional does. When you gain skills and knowledge, you do not suddenly become a person in the clouds. That's egocentric, and irresponsible. You're still a human like everyone else, you just happen to know a few more things. That knowledge is to be spread, shared, and engaged with by others, not hoarded like some treasure of personal superiority.

You are not a dense person, so I leaning on the assumption you are using this as an excuse to avoid conversation when it becomes difficult for you. That is being an intellectual coward, and a hypocrite. You'll be a polemicist and yell at people all day, but when someone asks you to rise to clarify your point, you retreat. Didn't you say thought thrived on conflict? Don't you constantly lament that philosopher's are not willing to engage you on points you find important? Yet here you are retreating with a poor excuse when you have all of that in front of you.

The topic here is the question, 'Is Technology a New Religion,' you are talking about people deriving pleasure or satisfaction from religion. — JerseyFlight

Although I'm not referring to religion per se, the question is about whether technology is a religion.

You quoted me without saying anything. Did you have a point to make?