- Thread starter
- #4,376
i reckon this question has been answered a stack of times within this thread. the idea is not any different from centralised religon. it gives people an ontology (human existence came from single cell organisms!), an epistemology (our high priests of science have the answers), and an eschatology (the sun will swallow us all one day ultimately!). it is convenient to make large groups of people believe in things for purposes of control - this is well documented in psychology, people defer to authority.
in the case of religion, the idea that priests and gurus know more than the average person could ever know, stops them from ever actually thinking about the world around them. further, it shrouds the idea that they ever can understand the world around them (but the minister does, and he wise, donate to the church!). it is the same with modern day scientism. nobody in this thread will ever get in a craft and travel sufficient height to know the shape of the world in an empirical way. so, what are we left with, models and photos. rather than having grown, possibly intelligent adults, spending their days investigating the very nature of their existence. it is more effective to give them an answer at a young age, fill their minds with film and media about that answer, and know that they'll accept that answer. you can then know that they'll be good consumers, good workers, and generally subservient people.
it makes perfect sense to construct a society around centralised beliefs.
