Rationality and tradition

[Deleted member 619]

Well, the details of that would involve a long discussion about how 'belief' is defined, and why it's such a nebulous and woolly term that including knowledge under the rubric of belief is idiotic, but I'm a bit pushed for time now. Suffice it to say for now that I don't include knowledge under the umbrella of belief (and I reject all definitions of belief that do), that I know that science works, and that belief is superfluous and irrelevant.

 

[Xenophanes]

Well, the details of that would involve a long discussion about how 'belief' is defined, and why it's such a nebulous and woolly term that including knowledge under the rubric of belief is idiotic, but I'm a bit pushed for time now. Suffice it to say for now that I don't include knowledge under the umbrella of belief (and I reject all definitions of belief that do), that I know that science works, and that belief is superfluous and irrelevant.

But yet you want to impute the same thing to religious people.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Err, what do I want to impute to religious people?

 

[DanDare]

Tradition is something handed down with the expectation it will be accepted rather than examined.
Science is not a tradition. Its underlying philosophical structure is tested and kicked at every possible turn. That science, as it currently embodied, "works" (i.e. produces useful results) is an observable fact, requiring no belief.

Tradition is different to the old definition of conservatism. Conservatism means changing only with a great deal of caution and adopting the status quo as the default position. This is a more useful position than tradition as it allows the status quo to be challenged and eventually changed. Progressiveness goes further in calling for more rapid change but still requires that reason be applied. Of them all tradition is the useless one as it is simply dogmatic.