The thing with scientism

I’m not entirely against science, since if science makes you happy then it makes you happy and if you have a calling for science then do it and I’m not going to berate you for it. When it comes to scientism, I suspect it came more recently as even prior scientists attributed things to God or divinity (especially as parson naturalists or clerical scientists and there’s also a historical link between medicine and the Church).

In the sense of what broke the camel’s back was both the Enlightenment or gradual secularisation which started before but didn’t get so big until the Enlightenment came (not that the Middle Ages and Renaissance were any better, as much as faith and beliefs played a big part whether if it includes superstitions). To be fair not every atheist’s into science, nor are all scientists atheists as there are some Christians among them.

But I still suspect the tendency to associate science with atheism came very recently, where it does act as a religion to some people (an Irish atheist said that this is a security blanket, of all the people who said it).

The strange thing

The strange thing about Marquis de Sade and to some extent, Denis Diderot, is that whilst atheists they’re not at all involved in the sciences to my knowledge where a good number of Christians were involved in the sciences and still are to some extent (parson naturalist for instance used to be a feature of many, if not all sciences).

So the association of atheism with science came much more recently in hindsight, especially when Christians used to contribute to the sciences a lot then that makes one wonder if the stereotype of atheist scientist’s a recent invention if because the phenomenon itself happened not too long ago. I still think that this needs more consideration, especially that not all atheists aren’t involved in the sciences.

Actually some of them still do, not because I advocate atheism but because the association of atheism with science’s rather recent in hindsight when it comes to parson naturalists being Christian scientists.

Is it blue, or is it violet?

When it comes to colour wavelengths of the spectrum, either it’s a weakness of language or weakness of the human eyes. Especially when it comes to detecting not only blue but also violet. I actually have the opinion that if violet isn’t purple (between red and blue), violet should ought to be considered super-blue. Actually sometimes some very blue items and objects look violet, like as if they absorbed a lot of yellow (the opposite of blue-violet).

If true, then violet might really be peak blue in this regard. Blue-violet lasers give off a lavender-blue glow, the bluest possible colour on the computer also gives off a violet glow when lightened or darkened. At least in some computer resolutions but that does make one wonder if the brightest possible blue generated by machines is actually the violet colour all along. Not to mention some human languages seem to have difficulty describing the blue colour that true blue would be violet.

In my opinion that is, maybe not always so but sometimes in some lighting ultraviolet can look blue and really blue violet can look violet (as well as some really blue objects) that violet should ought to be considered the brightest and purest possible blue colour as achieved by light and to some extent, dyes.

Old atheism and new atheism

Not that there weren’t any science-obsessed atheists before but the odd fact that for a long time, even clergy were historically involved in the sciences makes me think the association of atheism with science happened more recently than one realises. Not that atheists of yore were any better other than that they were heavily more involved in the arts than science as far as I know.

(Both Denis Diderot and Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade were writers so atheism for them may’ve been a logical choice for self expression though I think the latter may’ve changed.)

Another problem’s that although not all Christians are like this, a good number of them (Evangelicals) do distrust science and higher learning to varying degrees that it only proves some atheists right. I’m not necessarily pro-atheism but the odd fact that the association of science with atheism came way more recently.

(Likewise Christians were also historically involved in the sciences but I think these are pretty underrepresented.)

I’m not out condoning atheism as much as I think such a role reversal came recently.

Not so dumb but oh so hurt

I still think if more blonds tend to be neurotic (same with albinos), wouldn’t that be partly attributed to being misunderstood a lot of times over? If you’re often considered dumb and rude when in reality you’re smart but misunderstood, wouldn’t that hurt you a lot? If you’re often judged by the way you look or what you seem to be to others, you’d also feel bad too.

Let’s not also forget that some people don’t like being complimented based on the way they look. If some blonds don’t like being complimented for the same reason, that’s going to hurt them in some way. That would involve realising that some people want to be seen as people, regardless of certain impressions. You could be prone to wearing florals but also be into philosophy.

You could be a girly girl but still have an immense interest in deeper things too. If some people don’t like being reduced to misleading impressions, then that’s going to hurt them anyways.

Pale and neurotic

My understanding should blond/light brown haired and albino folks (I actually consider light brown hair to be blond) get confirmed to be neurotic, let’s not also forget that this might be due to being misunderstood a lot. Whether if they’re often seen as incompetent and untrustworthy should be taken into consideration in how and why a light-haired person might be more neurotic than a black haired person is.

It’s like if you’re often infantilised and talked down a lot or valued/regarded for superficial traits, wouldn’t that upset certain people? If you’re often considered dumb and immature even if you’re studious, mature and eloquent because of the way you look, then that’s going to upset somebody. Same with being patronised and infantilised a lot.

I had this kind of prescient thought that blonds might be outed as being more neurotic (same with albinos) but this should also be attributed to bad experiences with people. Since some people don’t like being complimented for their looks, some blond/palke people ought to feel the same way too. If you’re considered stupid, immature or whatever despite you being an otherwise clever, responsible character it’d piss you off too.

It could be due to my own personal experiences but enough to extrapolate on the possibility of neurotic blonds.

Missing role models

Part of the real reason why Evangelicals fail to attract new followers is because they lack any role models to look up to. Whether if Evangelicals like it or not, representation’s needed. Not just in the sense of multiculturalism but also because when it comes to certain people they really do lack role models to look up to. Given Evangelicals’ anti-intellectualism and own disregard for history, it can make it harder to come up with role models that science-minded characters can look up to.

Ironically, Christianity has had a history of being involved in the sciences. Much moreso than with the arts really. Monks and nuns were involved in medicine just as you’ve got parson-naturalists or clergy scientists. These characters are needed to keep the science-minded faithful to religion. The lack of them makes it harder for somebody to look up to because they don’t witness them in Christianity much. Likewise, I think at least some strains of Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity has this right.

In the sense that there are people followers can look up to and emulate. It needn’t to be within Evangelicalism but something Christians should do like co-opting Catholicism and Orthodox to gain more followers this way.

New atheism and Marquis de Sade

Like I said, the disassociation between religion and science came about very recently. In that historically there were parson-naturalists as well as monks interested in science. Some of the people who influenced biology, astronomy and physics were Christians themselves. Conversely speaking, whilst this wasn’t always the case either Marquis de Sade’s one such character who whilst an atheist (at least until he met a short priest) wasn’t really that big on the sciences either.

(Dante Alighieri, a Christian writer, was stated to be well-versed in the sciences and he worked in medicine. Likewise some scientists try to understand religion, including Christianity.)

Though the same can’t be said of Denis Diderot, it seems parsimonious to say that historically speaking atheism was more of a natural bedfellow to the arts than to the sciences. In the sense that a parson-naturalist might turn to science to understand the supernatural better whilst in art, you can make up stories where religion’s evil. (The X-Men stories are very much like this, especially in the comics.) Again not always the case.

But I’d still say that the demarcation between religion and science happened much more recently than one realises. Especially if/when the most famous atheists prior to the 19th century were actually in the arts.

Epigenetics, baby

If there are other reasons why some dogs can process starch but others don’t I suspect in the future there’s also the possibiity of epigenetics playing a part. Especially given how they’re raised, with hunter-gatherers’ dogs (and some rural dogs) likely not having extra copies of such a gene needed to process starch and go on hunting prey. Maybe not always the case but if/when hunter-gatherers don’t feed/spoil their dogs often (that’s if resources get scarce easily), then it’s not only impractical to spoil dogs often.

But that either lessens the possibility of dogs having extra copies needed to process starch (this might be true for not only dingo dogs but also rural pariah dogs in Asia, parts of Europe and Africa) or at least if said genes aren’t turned on. If dogs hadn’t been spoilt often especially in some hunting communities, then there’s no way subsequent puppies and dogs would digest starch well. Perhaps evidenced by diseases like jaundice and diarrhoea (this happened to me).

If confirmed true in the future, then it seems the dingo’s inability to process starch might also be partly epigenetic and true for other dogs as well.

Social Fallacies

I think whoever wrote the Geek social fallacy thing could and should also be applied to Christians, especially when it comes to trying to win new converts and the like at times. Like as in if Christians were that earnest in attracting more people or at least seeking company whenever there’s a shortage of it in the church, they shouldn’t infantilise and talk down to people especially in things that might offend them should they get educated.

Something like showing people studies on dog witchcraft and dog predation to get how and why the Bible doesn’t have a high opinion of dogs (depending on the edition). That’s saying in that some people might get puzzled and offended by what you’re trying to convey and you need to corroborate it with supplementary media to get the point across. That’s without making them feel ignorant or whatever.

(I actually think more Christians need to be in the sciences, including anthropology, to convert people without talking down to them.)

Alternately speaking, Christians need to rethink their idea of a relationship with God to make it understandable to outsiders this time around. The friendship thing actually makes less sense is/when God tends to boss people around that he should be regarded as a manager or sports coach. That’s actually the most straightforward thing to put it this way, especially when it comes to training and sport coaches losing their cool when things don’t go well.

Or for another matter, drill instructors acting the way they do around their mentees. It’s the most straightforward and parsimonious thing to say and convey to others but one that involves less misguided sentimentality and more on a kind of bluntness that outsiders can understand and relate to more. If many more people like sports, then Christians should accept that God is a lot like a sports coach.

Or even a nurse since nurses are made to cure people and also lose their tempers a lot if/when bothered enough. (Again something many can get by, especially if/when they’re familiar with it on some level and that Christianity historically had a role in Western medicine.)

Things like those are needed to attract more followers or even to gain a lover/spouse if/when there are so few of them in church that you might need to be more open-minded and considerate when attracting outsiders at all.