When you say or do socially unacceptable things, there can be consequences. Is that “heresy”? I always associated that word with religion, myself, but it’s interesting that religion is so out of favor right now that you can use it as a comparison to argue that any action not explicitly illegal should be free of negative consequence.
It doesn't require a great intellectual jump to see how the word 'heresy' which has a tradition of being applied towards organized religion is an appropriate description of people that behave in a religious way in general.
Religion is just a belief system. So is Marxism. Libertarianism. Etc.
Hard disagree. I see this idea a lot, and it drives me nuts. This is how you get to silly takes like "atheism is just another religion", "science is just another religion", and all that. I get that religion can be hard to nail down (belief without evidence maybe?), but it's no use just giving up and defining it so broadly that it means nothing.
This does not broaden the concept of religion, but narrows the idea of science as something sacrosanct (ironically).
There is a belief that the scientific methodology will lead to truth. This is the same as any other religion who is steeped in ceremonial practices. The issue of how practically applicable and successful at producing models, science has been, is incidental. As a religion, the concepts fit together nicely.
> There is a belief that the scientific methodology will lead to truth.
Except scientists themselves do not espouse such belief. They know what they know, and also they know what they don't know; the scientific methology, too, is also based on knowledge; there is no place for "belief" in scientific research.
When a scientist puts forward a hypothesis, which is not, strictly speaking, knowledge (yet), it does not mean that they "believe" in it, either; it's remains just that - a hypothesis, which gets thrown away as soon as it is disproven.
One could argue that knowledge requires some kind of faith - you have to believe that you know something (while in reality you may or may not); but much of the knowlege we possess is "hard knowledge" - the kind that prevents us from taking actions that would definitely hurt us, for example; scientific knowledge is just as "hard," and so is the scientific method.
> Except scientists themselves do not espouse such belief.
Every religion has members who know what they know.
> there is no place for "belief" in scientific research.
There is a belief that the scientific method is optimal for discovering truth. How well it works, is not relevant to the fact that it's a practice. This isn't complicated or doublespeak.
Huh, "religious" people also like give plenty of evidence before they burn/shun/deplatform anyone. Evidence can be a thing whatever mob tries to enforce. Main thing is people look evidence in support and not contrary to their beliefs.
This is a crappy hot take. Monetary and labor contributions to religious endeavors are way down and have been for a while. I understand the desire to call any strongly held organized belief 'religion' but you're misrepresenting most of human history when you do so.
