where would we be without religion?

[Peterdragin]

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

From what I understand, the Church, over a period of many centuries, did nothing but make sure that human knowledge did NOT proceed at all, but was entirely limited to The Bible.

Yeah, as long as you ignore what actually happened. But let's ignore anything inconvenient to the point, right?

Who was responsible for burning the Library at Alexandria (which was the finest repository of ancient human history)? Was religion responsible for that? Honestly I don't know.

Then do some basic research being before using it to slam a group. Julius Caesar, BTW, did it on accident. Admittedly a few years later the daughter library was burned down, but that's because it was stored in a heathen temple. It needed a better location.

Some of the people who made these huge advances just HAPPENED TO be deeply religious, which was extremely common in those days.

Actually, no it wasn't. In fact, a) we're talking about groups (i.e., scholars in general) of people that were generally anti-religious, b) the individuals were noted for their fanaticism. So this is BS either way.

Heck, even though the issue with heliocentrism was religious, it was just a matter of time before the church accepted it. Even though Copernicus hid us discovery and Galileo was discounted because he was such an asshole, it was just a matter of time before enough scholars verified the numbers that it would have been undeniable.

Does anybody know whether the visions of Leonardo daVinci were hushed up or suppressed at the time because of the dominance of religion and its disparagement of anything scientific? If so, it's possible that human progress was set back 300 or more years.

Yeah, despite all of his published papers at the time, he was...Seriously? Yeah, he kept his secrets, but that's true even today, and for the same reasons: They could be used for more profit later on. The guy was one of the highest paid consultants at the time in a variety of fields,so maintaining secrecy of his discoveries would have been a good idea from his perspective. Nonetheless, he published enough scientific papers that it's really hard to build a case that he was "hushed up".

Truly, The Church was the SWORN ENEMY of human progress.

Yeah...as long as you ignore that the reason for the maintenance of knowledge was the church. Also, monks kept copying the old information. Better yet, because they didn't need to worry about costs (most of the research was cheap and even then it was easy to get the money needed from patrons and church superiors. And their was a lot of church-based research going on; one of the people Galileo out and out pissed off was the Father-General of the Jesuits, who published quite a few scientific papers. In fact, the reason for the dispute was that he published a paper on the nature of comets and Galileo pretty much slammed him (not his paper), even though he was pretty much on the mark.

Oh, wait; keep forgetting that I'm not supposed to say anything bad about Galileo. Oops.

The bottom line is that you cannot base someone's ability to do science based off their religious belief. There is almost no real correlation, even though a lot of atheists have tried (my personal favorite has to be the number of "eminent" scientists that are atheist, but at no time has anyone said which scientists these are). But please; let's keep discrimination based on beliefs and other non-consequentials alive and kicking...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I'm really not sure where to begin with this one....Time for the shovel...

Buddhism does not fit the dictionary definition of religion, nor did its creator view it as a religion. it is a philosophy, and a way of looking at the world, not an indoctrinated set of beliefs to be followed.

There isn't a single true statement here. Buddhism is listed as a major religion. Also, it meets 3 of 4 of the different definitions of religion (supernatural concepts, major philosophy, widespread belief divided into sects). Also, because of the holy books and temples where people go to learn more, you would have a hard time convincing anyone that there isn't a doctrine involved.

Buddha is not a god. He is not a supernatural being with amazing powers. He is simply an ordinary man who has (basically) discovered the meaning of life, and reached enlightenment.

Neither are Mohamed or Jesus (it gets complicated, but He is the part of the Trinity representing man). On the other hand, a number of interesting coincidences have been attributed to Buddha, if you would prefer not to use "miracles" or "supernatural powers".

Any person can become a Buddha themselves. This is not true in religion.

Lower case "buddha", sure. Just like saints in Catholicism.

If a priest were to stand in front of his sermon and say he has now become a God, he would be labeled a blasphemer

Pretty much the only true statement...

Sorry; this is what sort of annoys me about some people. I appreciate that you are trying to avoid some of the issues when it comes to "religion" versus "philosophy", but the point is that Buddhism is still effectively a religion. Keep in mind that I can make the same basic argument you did for secular Christianity. Nonetheless, I would still need to recognize that Christianity in general is a religion.

Nice try though...

RG

 

[bankside]

Not 200 years ahead but easily a thousand years ahead. I can think of no greater example of "so close..yet so far…"

Religion is a lot of hideous mythology and naked greed riding the coattails of a common human need to form communities and evince wonder about the world. It has done a small amount of good, in spite of itself. And we would all be better off if it were deposed once and for all by naked intellectual curiosity and everyday human compassion.

 

[zoltanspawn]

I'm tempted to say we would be inhuman without religion, but because I think animals have religious proclivities that isn't specific enough. So I think it would be more accurate to say something like, robotic or artificial.

 

[Musik2400]

So I'm not really sure if oppression of women can really be laid at the footsteps of religion.

RG

You're right. Religion isn't the reason for oppression of women.

I'm sure the stories of Pandora (in most stories, as the first woman) in ancient Greek religion had nothing to do with establishing women's positions in society. I'm sure that Christianity's portrayal as a woman as the "afterthought" to man had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the Muslim customs of a woman covering her whole body, the idea that the man is always in charge... that had no effect on it?

Sure, maybe in the years before the plague we were close to breaking the oppression... but it bounced back because its been deeply engrained in religion for so long.

Side note: .......But really if anyone wants to talk about coincidences, just compare any modern religion to Greek mythology. its all there. We're pretty much following the same religion as they did, we just have different names, and have changed/added stories over the years.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Not 200 years ahead but easily a thousand years ahead. I can think of no greater example of "so close..yet so far…"

Let's just ignore history then. Only within the last hundred years or so has any (for the most part) scientific discovery not been based on the work of someone exploring some facet of knowledge due to curiosity spurred on by either consideration of some mystery of spirituality (from which most of our advanced math ultimately comes from), from someone that decided to look for proof of biblical events (from which we easily get archaeology and evolution), or a way to better listen to what the gods were saying (astronomy, anyone?). And that excludes a lot of research into a number of sciences that the church developed first (such ob-gyn, genetics, and some medicine). Without religion, and its ability to explore items of non-commercial interest, there are a number of sciences that just would not have had the framework to advance past the most basic steps, either because the research just wasn't being done by pretty much anyone else or because the texts that were relied on would have rotted away millennia ago.

I'm not trying to be pro-religion here, nor trying to dismiss a lot of work by atheists. I'm just trying to point out that modern science owes a lot to the various religions of the past, when it seemed that most of the research was being done by monks and clergy. Sure, you have Galileo, Brahe, and easily dozens of others, but for the most part only relatively recently have universities gone from merely teaching to doing actual research, not to mention archiving the research, all of which was almost solely the bailiwick of the churches.

Religion is a lot of hideous mythology and naked greed riding the coattails of a common human need to form communities and evince wonder about the world.

I'd argue that most of this would be those manipulating religion. After all, any time that any given religion has decided to advance its own temporal power it has been slapped down or lost a lot of power through. Various popes, the Templars, Shaolin temples, Henry VIII, usury, and Martin Luther make for some interesting reading if you really think that religion has been unassailable until recently.

It has done a small amount of good, in spite of itself. And we would all be better off if it were deposed once and for all by naked intellectual curiosity and everyday human compassion.

I'd argue that the reverse is true, that religion, when allowed to be its best and balanced against the laws of the land, is a major source for good. Sure, you have things like the Inquisition, the Crusades, and some serious cult issues, but on the balance you have the number of revolutions it has inspired, the sciences, and that even the US government has been forced to recognize the ability of local churches' charity as a form of safety net. I'm also balancing it against the various communist pogroms.

Religion, on the balance, has done more good than bad, and I think that's something worth recognizing...

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I'm sure the stories of Pandora (in most stories, as the first woman) in ancient Greek religion had nothing to do with establishing women's positions in society. I'm sure that Christianity's portrayal as a woman as the "afterthought" to man had nothing to do with it. I'm sure the Muslim customs of a woman covering her whole body, the idea that the man is always in charge... that had no effect on it?

I'm so "this person has never been in a relationship with a woman". Sure, on the books, women are told what to do by men. Now, actually enforce that when you're dealing with a woman you love. Ain't happening. This is also ignoring the tremendous effect of women on religion. Sure, you can argue Pandora and Eve; I'm going to point out the sheer number of biblical women that decided bloodlines, raised heroes, were heroes, and even had a major effect just by showing up for a few verses. You can argue "this is what the book says" all you want, but the reality of the situation is always going to slap you down.

Sure, maybe in the years before the plague we were close to breaking the oppression... but it bounced back because its been deeply engrained in religion for so long.

Nope. Ask any feminist about how often they get down and out PISSED because some guy didn't wait for them to hold a door open for them, and I'll bet the phrase "Chivalry is dead" will pop up like it's a bad thing. I'm just amused that someone thinks that an oppressive system would stay in place for so long for religious purposes when they ignore that a) it favors the oppressed over the oppressors, and b) based on what any male knows about how easy females can manipulate males it would be around longer than the women wanted it. But then I've done research into why women hate promotions, and so it's a running joke for me...

I'm not trying to be a dick here. Just saying: If I have problems getting my younger sister to get her daughter to school, and we all usually agree that going to school is a good thing, then I really feel sorry for the married guy who really thinks that his wife is going to stay home any more than she really wants to. There's just a major gap between the rules and what actually happens.

Side note: .......But really if anyone wants to talk about coincidences, just compare any modern religion to Greek mythology. its all there. We're pretty much following the same religion as they did, we just have different names, and have changed/added stories over the years.

As long as you ignore the bulk of it, sure. But for every Pandora, Medea, and Hera, you have ten Psyches, Lysanders, and Athenas. Not to mention that for every ten heroes like Perseus or Hercules you have a Zeus. And those heroes weren't exactly perfect. So all I'd also argue that Greek Mythology and modern religions have a number of the same points, but that's because a) they about the same age and come from the same stock so it's not a major surprise that they cover some of the same ground, and b) the motivation for the stories is completely different.

Now, comparing the story of Journey to the West to the Bible...that's actually fun! [I wonder if he'll get the joke...?]

RG

 

[bankside]

RobinGoodfellow, I have two answers; one, where I disagree with you completely:

If we are to give religion credit for inspiring science, it's that science is the necessary reaction to the untenable mess of contradictions presented by religion as a fait-accompli: religion made such a mess of things that someone had to invent science to begin the process of untangling it.

To suggest that religion is somehow responsible, other than inadvertently, would require there to be something inherent in the religion in question to give a spark to the research. But there is no such thing as Buddhist Physics that makes more accurate predictions about black holes than Mormon Physics. There is no Talmudic genome research that is more revealing than genomic research conducted under the protection of Hera's Temple. Jehova's Witnesses can't do geology better than zoroastrians. Inviting the Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox Church to the commissioning of the Large Hadron Collider will make no difference compared to having invited a Shintō priest.

If any of those things did change the science, you might not only be able to claim religion has something to do with science, but by comparing the quality of the results you might even be able to infer something about the validity of the various religions.

My other answer agrees somewhat more with you: let us say that religion is not only not inimical to science but that religion is itself a form of science. It is an attempt to understand and explain what is observed. In that case, its utility is over. Chemistry has replaced alchemy. And religion-as-science is as inexact as Newtonian predictions in an Einsteinian world.

 

[yeahright1991]

I think that religion gives tools for people to connect with their inner spirituality in a positive way (regardless of the questions of faith in the unseen that come with belief in something). However...I think in general religion can be used against non-believers and people who do not share the same religion in an extremely divisive way. As far as where the world would be without it - It's hard to tell...my own beliefs aside...religion has funded education and charity and so many good things...but has also been used to support so many bad things (such as the repression of knowledge in some cases, war, and countless other actions). It's really an impossible question to answer.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

2012 March, Kentucky USA...... I guess God was busy and didn't hear her request even in tongues.

 

[refujiunderground]

i think the world would be a better place because people wouldn't be holding their minds back and allow themselves to be more intelligent. being religious actually makes you dumb.

 

[Antoine]

i think the world would be a better place because people wouldn't be holding their minds back and allow themselves to be more intelligent. being religious actually makes you dumb.

I wouldn't say religion makes people dumb, but it definitely makes them narrow minded..

 

[bulge]

If god exists and created this world, mankind has the moral duty to suicide itself right now. This world is a downright humiliation of mankind. We can only hope it is a merely random accident of nothingness, otherwise it is perfectly unbearable.

 

[bort138]

Religion may have had a purpose at one point in human history to attempt to understand the world and explain things that could not be understood. To continue to believe these irrational explanations and superstitions that were created by humans in their infancy is to ignore the advancements we have made through science and reason. Humans have outgrown religion and no longer need it to explain the world or derive morals from. Religion today is impeding social progress and preventing people from acting like humans to each other.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Does that mean that you consider atheists to be robotic and artificial as well?

No, but they may aspire to artificiality. I think many may simply be conflicted animals.

 

[bort138]

Islamic extremists are reason enough to show that religion is and has been a terrible mistake for humanity and threatens civilized society as we know it.

 

[looseliam]

[strike]islamic [/strike] extremists are reason enough to show that religion is and has been a terrible mistake for humanity and threatens civilized society as we know it.

ftfy



.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

I wouldn't say religion makes people dumb, but it definitely makes them narrow minded..

I don't know....so how do you explain those that are narrow-minded without religion? I just it interesting that religion has no monopoly on limited thinking. In a weird way I suppose I've noticed more narrow-thinking among atheists (with far too many of them that think the religious are homophobic, racist, and generally lacking in basic intelligence)...but being atheist would never allow for that kind of thinking, right?

RG

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

If we are to give religion credit for inspiring science, it's that science is the necessary reaction to the untenable mess of contradictions presented by religion as a fait-accompli: religion made such a mess of things that someone had to invent science to begin the process of untangling it.

The problem is that whenever people started trying to uncover the contradictions, they usually found that the various religions basically had it right on a lot of levels. There's a lot of good reasons to not eat shellfish and pork, for example. It sort of wierded physicists out when they found out about the Buddhist concept of maya, where the universe is mostly illusion; with all of the space between atoms, it's a pretty good approximation of how the universe really is. Even historians have been able to use The Bible as a way to get some insight on historical anomalies, and track them down; my personal favorite has to be Jericho (once you allow for some serious spin, it actually works out (replace the sound with earthquakes, for the anal)).

It has also been used as the inspiration to figure out exactly how the Universe works. A number of divine-inspired researchers have thus looked carefully at the Universe in order to unlock its secrets. Just look at astronomy; although it was original based on the careful work of astrologers looking to uncover divinations, eventually they dropped the mystical side of things and started being a bit more analytical about it, uncovering, losing, and finding a lot of information on how the universe works on a major scale.

You're also ignoring that the monks had a lot of time on their hands backed by some serious treasury; after all, there was a time when churches, etc., had a lot of land. It doesn't help that they had noble backing (either as some form of usury, contribution for something that happened, or Daddy backing his younger son who just entered the abbey). This meant that they had a lot of time for contemplation, and a lot of them became scientists. Just look at the advances in math, health, agriculture, and even genetics that came out of the temples. What, you thought all monks were copiers and artists? Yeah....

The bottom line is that, yeah, there was a lot of private research as well as some projects paid by nobles and merchants, but there was a lot of science happening behind those walls.

My other answer agrees somewhat more with you: let us say that religion is not only not inimical to science but that religion is itself a form of science. It is an attempt to understand and explain what is observed. In that case, its utility is over. Chemistry has replaced alchemy. And religion-as-science is as inexact as Newtonian predictions in an Einsteinian world.

Chemistry replaced alchemy a long time ago; glad you finally got the memo ;-). At the same time, Newtonian predictions still apply to the world. Newton's gravitic formulas are the basis of finding new worlds, not to mention his calculus still defines a lot of today's math (ignoring of course that Newton was divinely inspired and a religious zealot). Sorry, but Einstein's physics really only apply to objects going really, really fast. So...I'm not really sure why the dislike of why stating that a lot of science came out of divine inspiration, beyond a fanatical need to prove atheism is somehow superior....

RG