-8

I do not know any country in the world that jails people for "blaspheming" against science.

People are free to say evolution is just a theory. Nobody says "that's blasphemy, jail him". We may think that's silly, but we don't jail them.

So why does nobody consider science and capitalism sacrosanct? Is it true? Does any country criminalize blaspheming against science or capitalism?

The pattern that I see so far is:

  1. The more things make sense and have more evidence the less sacrosanct it is.
  2. The more beneficial something is, the less sacrosanct it is.
  3. The more something can be used to corrupt public money, the more sacrosanct it is.

Why do people consider religions sacrosanct and yet not science, or capitalism?


Notes:

In my opinion, nothing should be sacrosanct and all beliefs must play fair. I have no intention to make science or capitalism sacrosanct. I am interested to know why they are not made sacrosanct. I've no idea why people think I want to promote something, so they want to close this question because of that. Promote what?

Example (stub) answers:

  • perhaps, there is no money in making capitalism sacrosanct.

  • Or perhaps, once it's made sacrosanct it's no longer "science".

  • Or perhaps capitalists do not like restrictions of freedom of speech and hence do not desire laws against blaspheming against capitalism.

If so, I want to know why.

None of those are obvious. Even if it's not obvious I sometimes want to make obvious things more obvious. Are there something even "close" to people making capitalism and science sacrosanct?

Some people may consider capitalism sacrosanct, however, I have never heard any capitalists behead those who differ and capitalists differ a lot in opinions.

closed as off-topic by bytebuster, Machavity, James K, Reinstate Monica - M. Schröder, Philipp Dec 19 '18 at 22:43

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "The primary purpose of this question appears to be to promote or discredit a specific political cause, group or politician. It does not appear to be a good-faith effort to learn more about governments, policies and political processes as defined in the help center." – James K, Reinstate Monica - M. Schröder, Philipp
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 9
    In the case of science, it kind of defeats the purpose. – eyeballfrog Dec 19 '18 at 22:11
  • 1
    I like this question. I think the part about Ahok is undermining your real question though. I would suggest removing everything before "Why do people consider religions sacrosanct and yet not science or capitalism?" – CramerTV Dec 19 '18 at 23:20
  • 2
    People don't consider religions sacrosanct. They consider THEIR religion sacrosanct. Those who follow other religions, or no religion, are (at best) sadly misguided sinners who need to be brought to the light. – jamesqf Dec 20 '18 at 5:52
  • 1
    "So why capitalism, that produces so much wealth for the world [Citation needed] is not considered sacrosanct [Citation needed] compared to ideologies and other strange ideas that cause tons of suffering [Citation needed]?" Capitalism produces much wealth, but also much poverty. It is considered sacrosant - no one dares to challenge the system and anyone proposing alternatives is ridiculized, attacked or even fought against (and destroyed). It has produced and continues to produce inmense quantities of pain and suffering all over the world. – Rekesoft Dec 21 '18 at 8:47
  • 1
    Capitalism does produce wealth. If it causes suffering and poverty, it's another issue. It does produce wealth. I know no country that criminalize blaspheming against capitalism. You think religious ideas don't cause suffering? Ever heard 9/11? – user4951 Dec 21 '18 at 20:17
1

If one posits that religion is a way for powerful people to control a population then it follows that they would create laws to crack down on those who would undermine that source of power - the clerics in Iran come to mind.

Religion has been around for much longer than science or capitalism and thus, it took hold first.

We can also look around the world to see other reasons for people getting thrown in jail by speaking out against the ruler, think North Korea, Nazi Germany, etc. Leaders will change or make laws to maintain their power.

One could easily see how science could get there. If a dictator or assortment of lawmakers in a country could derive their power from science advocates, laws could be passed for speaking out against scientific 'truths', such as Evolution and Climate Change. We already see both sides of those discussions shutting down rational conversation. It would only take a charismatic leader and no safeguards to make it illegal.

The same would apply to capitalism, if enough people had their power based on support from capitalists they could make laws outlawing its criticism.

In the US, we have laws insuring we can speak out against any sort of ideology without legal recrimination - within limits. But other countries without these safeguards could make laws based on whatever they wanted to.

  • Both answer is good. I like your angle more. Someone wants religion to be sacrosanct – user4951 Dec 20 '18 at 7:32
  • @user4951 This answer is rooted in greed as the cause, in that a small group influence the system to obtain the power and retain it. My answer is more from a collective society's view rooted in fear developing the concept. Both can be correct, and to some extent likely are. I think this answer applies more accurately to established hierarchies we see today. – David S Dec 20 '18 at 15:15
  • Actually I like your answers more. This is a question with reasonable answer and yet I got 9 downvotes? What the hell? – user4951 Jan 4 at 20:26
5

Religion is a personal system of belief.

Religion is a cultural institution that has existed with recorded history. There is currently no known religion to be proven true and many religions contain elements impossible to disprove.

Another take on religion is a system of beliefs that are entangled with incorporeal elements.

Being that this is a personal belief, there really is nothing to do if someone believes something that is wrong.

So here is a combination of difficulty in proving a belief incorrect, as well as attempting to devalue something that is foundational to the majority of humanity's culture and history. It will remain sacrosanct until the majority of humans no longer value it.

An outside influence cannot change what someone believes to be true. They can claim their belief changed, but it isn't until someone is internally willing to change their beliefs that it changes.

Science is a social system of belief.

Science is a social system of belief. However, the difference between science and religion is that science is s system designed to be as inclusive as possible for all people to utilize and understand. This is a system based on corporeal or demonstrable acts that physically exist.

Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Science attempts to provide the physical mechanism for how something happens. Where a priest may say that God holds a bird in the air through flight, science would provide the physics of how the bird is in the air. Does that mean God isn't holding the bird up? This isn't answered by science. Science explains what it can the most accurately it can.

A famous early example of how science was decoupling from the sacrosanct is Galileo. There are many other examples of a few people proving everyone else wrong. Over enough time of people dying and science still being correct it was more acceptable to challenge the known with facts of science.

The very concept of being sacrosanct is antithetical to science. It thrives on being challenged in new ways, having the normal tables flipped, and any sort of change as long as it can be proven correct (or more correct than previous conventions).

There are attempts at making scientific claims sacrosanct. Not to get controversial, but looking at political arguments in climate science clearly shows how there is are factions of people whom defend their perspective on the topic like it is a religion (climate alarmists and climate deniers).

However, the majority of people have come to accept that the freedom of scientific ideas is has immeasurable benefit.

Science is a process to discover things that can be proven to others as true. The only way to change this would be to develop something people value more.

Capitalism is a social system of commerce.

There is nothing sacrosanct about capitalism. It is far from perfect. Economists and politicians are constantly trying to improve it or figure out ways to change things.

While it has done a lot of good, people are quick to point out many flaws in ways that it doesn't do good things. One clear example is that capitalism is terrible for people of exceptionally low intelligence. I am not sure if a better system exists or is possible, but to call capitalism sacrosanct would be to give up on looking for a solution for the disenfranchised.

Not to mention that capitalism doesn't scale down to small isolated communities very well.

I honestly struggle with the concept of capitalism being sacrosanct without everything else about the world being totally insane.

To be clear, this answer is from a Western perspective. I don't find this answer to be great, but maybe it can be improved.

  • Try permutating your bolded headlines. Do they still make sense, even just 'sort of'? (The body text below them is much better, in all cases, than the categorisations, which lack definition. They read like your prescriptions) – LаngLаngС Dec 19 '18 at 23:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .