Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity, Knowledge and Science
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 221 (376190)
01-11-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by arachnophilia
01-11-2007 11:29 AM


Re: knowledge and scotness' point
Yeah, you be right. I old and slow.
The point is that we do not as a whole actually consider the rightness of what we do. When we filter the question through ONLY the Bible or any other such single filter, we limit knowledge.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.
We need to remember that the author of Timothy was NOT talking about the Bible. The Bible did not even exist at the time that was written.
There is a great body of knowledge out there for our instruction, and we need to learn as much as we can. Limiting knowledge, or searching from the position that some sources are false by default, can never lead to Wisdom.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2007 11:29 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 77 of 221 (376215)
01-11-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
01-10-2007 7:59 PM


Religion as a barrier to science
Hopefully bringing this thread back on topic......
I appreciate and accept all that you say about many faiths and many of those of faith not necessarily applying irrational barriers to knowledge.
However I still maintain that the OP raises a valid point. This is why -
Any conclusions regarding the physical world and our place in it based on irrational and untestable thinking CAN result in barriers to the progress of scientific knowledge.
These conclusions do not have to be religious in nature. Political ideologies can lead to similar forms of thinking. However political ideologies are less likely to be concerning themselves with the workings of the natural world than religious ones where issues of creation, humanity, everlasting soul etc. etc. etc. are far more prevalant and intrinsic to the beliefs in question.
Religious convictions by their very nature are irrational and untestable and do, in some cases, relate to the physical world and our role in it.
When this is the case they can, and indeed have, acted as a barrier to scientific progress.
Stem cell research is a case in point (it is true I did not know it was just state funding that was banned - but although this lessens the negative effect the reason for the ruling and therefore the principle is the same)
In summary
ANY conclusions (religious or otherwise) that are irrational and untestable CAN act as a barrier to scientific progress.
Religious conclusions regards the physical world are often by their very nature untestable (e.g. the existence of a soul in fertilised human eggs)
Untestable religious conclusions have acted as a barrier to scientific progress in the past (as demonstrated adequately by the Beyond Belief seminars discussed and linked to earlier in this thread.
Untestable religious convictions are acting as a barrier to stem cell research in the US now.
As the OP asserts there is an issue with irrational untestable convictions forming barriers to scientific progress and religion is a (arguably THE) major purveyor of just such convictions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 7:59 PM jar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 78 of 221 (376216)
01-11-2007 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
01-10-2007 7:59 PM


Religion as a barrier to science
Hopefully bringing this thread back on topic......
I appreciate and accept all that you say about many faiths and many of those of faith not necessarily applying irrational barriers to knowledge.
However I still maintain that the OP raises a valid point. This is why -
Any conclusions regarding the physical world and our place in it based on irrational and untestable thinking CAN result in barriers to the progress of scientific knowledge.
These conclusions do not have to be religious in nature. Political ideologies can lead to similar forms of thinking. However political ideologies are less likely to be concerning themselves with the workings of the natural world than religious ones where issues of creation, humanity, everlasting soul etc. etc. etc. are far more prevalant and intrinsic to the beliefs in question.
Religious convictions by their very nature are irrational and untestable and do, in some cases, relate to the physical world and our role in it.
When this is the case they can, and indeed have, acted as a barrier to scientific progress.
Stem cell research is a case in point (it is true I did not know it was just state funding that was banned - but although this lessens the negative effect the reason for the ruling and therefore the principle is the same)
In summary
ANY conclusions (religious or otherwise) that are irrational and untestable CAN act as a barrier to scientific progress.
Religious conclusions regards the physical world are often by their very nature untestable (e.g. the existence of a soul in fertilised human eggs)
Untestable religious conclusions have acted as a barrier to scientific progress in the past (as demonstrated adequately by the Beyond Belief seminars discussed and linked to earlier in this thread.
Untestable religious convictions are acting as a barrier to stem cell research in the US now.
As the OP asserts there is an issue with irrational untestable convictions forming barriers to scientific progress by maintaining 'cultures of ignorance' Religion is arguably THE major purveyor of just such convictions and therefore arguably the main cause of cultures of ignorance.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 01-10-2007 7:59 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 01-11-2007 1:46 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 79 of 221 (376224)
01-11-2007 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by anastasia
01-10-2007 7:55 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
And is that very feature of untestability that is the problem and the reason that religion can act as a barrier to science
If those in power decide, for absolutely rationally unjustifiable and untestable reasons that stem cell research is bad then there is nothing that can possibly be done to prove otherwise.
So a barreier to scientific progress is in place because of an irrational untestable religious conviction.
Science can demonstrate that Jews, Africans and everybody else are all perfectly equally human and therefore knowledge is the key to ending the assumption that some people are 'more human' (or whatever justification was used by those in your example) than others.
Religious beliefs are not subject to such testing and demonstration and that is exactly the cause of the problem that the OP discusses!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by anastasia, posted 01-10-2007 7:55 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 01-11-2007 1:25 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 97 by anastasia, posted 01-11-2007 11:44 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 80 of 221 (376228)
01-11-2007 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Straggler
01-11-2007 1:10 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
Straggler writes:
So a barreier to scientific progress is in place because of an irrational untestable religious conviction.
What you're describing sounds more like a political problem than a religious one. "Those in power" can derive their convictions from a lot of sources besides religious ones.
In Canada, our politicians make all kinds of irrational decisions based on untestable convictions - but not necessarily religious convictions.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 1:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 4:02 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 81 of 221 (376236)
01-11-2007 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Straggler
01-11-2007 12:55 PM


on barriers to knowledge.
Before going on to address the bulk of your post, let me point out a few other issues related to stem cell research in the US.
Stem cell research is a case in point (it is true I did not know it was just state funding that was banned - but although this lessens the negative effect the reason for the ruling and therefore the principle is the same)
A little more history on how things are done in the US (there really is a madness to the method).
What you are talking about is a ban on Federal funding of Fetal Stem Cell research only. It does not stop even Fetal Stem Cell research in the us, or preclude individual states from funding such research or any private funding of such research.
Second, the US Congress has passed bills supporting such research consistently in the past and it looks like they will in the next few weeks pass yet another such bill.
But here is where US political policies get somewhat messy.
President Bush has vetoed every such bill passed.
In the US a bill becomes law through a procedure. First it must be passed by both Houses of Congress. The Bill must then be sent to the President and the President signs the bill into law.
The President has ten days (not including Sundays) to sign the bill or to veto it, return it to Congress.
This is what has happened to every Fetal Stem Cell Research funding bill. The President has vetoed them.
When a President vetoes a bill, Congress can override his veto BUT it requires a super majority. Two Thirds of BOTH Houses of Congress must vote to override the veto. (there is also a procedure called "Pocket Veto" used but I will save that for some other civics lesson )
Now Congress is filled with religious folk as well as non-religious, and they have consistently voted to support fetal stem cell research. Therefore it is not simply religion that is blocking science.
Instead it is just the minority body of certain religious folk that stand in the way. For example, a block as small as 34 Senators out of the 100 members of the Senate can block the override of a Presidential veto even if the other 501 members of Congress vote to override.
Now on to your summary.
ANY conclusions (religious or otherwise) that are irrational and untestable CAN act as a barrier to scientific progress.
Of course.
Religious conclusions regards the physical world are often by their very nature untestable (e.g. the existence of a soul in fertilised human eggs)
Of course. In fact the very belief in a soul is untestable.
Untestable religious conclusions have acted as a barrier to scientific progress in the past (as demonstrated adequately by the Beyond Belief seminars discussed and linked to earlier in this thread.
Of course. But religious beliefs have also acted as a spur to scientific progress. One of the main reasons science so interests me is I want to know how GOD did it?
Untestable religious convictions are acting as a barrier to stem cell research in the US now.
True, but those same religious folk also passed the bills that the President vetoed. You must remember that there are Religious people on both sides of this and nearly any issue.
As the OP asserts there is an issue with irrational untestable convictions forming barriers to scientific progress and religion is a (arguably THE) major purveyor of just such convictions.
Well, then argue that. But I believe I have also shown that religious beliefs can also oppose such convictions.
Throughout this thread I have provided links to religious sites that would agree that unfounded irrational convictions should not be a barrier to science or scientific progress.
Your complaint is not with religion, but with Cultures of Ignorance. To quote once again from the Clergy Project (remember that this is a document signed and endorsed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy) ...
We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 12:55 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 4:34 PM jar has not replied
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 4:47 PM jar has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 82 of 221 (376246)
01-11-2007 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by NosyNed
01-11-2007 10:28 AM


Re: knowledge and scotness' point
nosy writes:
I think that scottness has a good point in there.
Maybe, his point is overshadowed and buried by his flawed and errant conclusion that the god as depicted and defined in the bible is the true omniscient God of creation. His point is that this flawed vision of god is ultimate *knowledge* is mostly wrong.
I agree with Jar's sentiment ....
jar writes:
For that though, the Bible is no better a guide than the Tao Te Ching, I Ching, writings of Mencius, Confucius, the Buddha, the Qur'an, the Vedas
The bible is in no favorable position and has nothing in it to rationally consider it as an ultimate source of knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NosyNed, posted 01-11-2007 10:28 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 83 of 221 (376248)
01-11-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Rob
01-11-2007 1:38 AM


Re: End of silly game playing
As C.S. Lewis said, '...cool intellect must not only prevail against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms that deny intellect altogether.'
So Lewis supported the theory of evolution.
__

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Rob, posted 01-11-2007 1:38 AM Rob has not replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5914 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 84 of 221 (376249)
01-11-2007 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Rob
01-11-2007 1:38 AM


Re: End of silly game playing
scottness writes:
And that option is to surrender our whole life to God.
Sure, but how do you know you are surrendering to the true God and not some demigod or maybe even Satan. Faith and mystical beliefs cannot be trusted and that is amply demonstrated by history and 10000+ disparate religious system that exist within the realm of human thought.
scottness writes:
2 Kings 7:3 Now there were four men with leprosy at the entrance of the city gate. They said to each other, "Why stay here until we die? 4 If we say, 'We'll go into the city'--the famine is there, and we will die. And if we stay here, we will die. So let's go over to the camp of the Arameans and surrender. If they spare us, we live; if they kill us, then we die."
That is Christianity. And that is knowledge.
How is that *knowledge*!? That is hopelessness and a lack of options.
Knowledge is finding the cure of leprosy!
The cure of leprosy was not found by praying on your knees or holy inspired reading of the bible or submitting yourself on the alter of despair.
The cure was founding by using the facilities that God provided.
Deeply religious people often have traditionally hostile to the acquisition of knowledge because they know that it weakens their position that they have invested in.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Rob, posted 01-11-2007 1:38 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Rob, posted 01-11-2007 8:11 PM iceage has replied
 Message 96 by Rob, posted 01-11-2007 10:59 PM iceage has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 85 of 221 (376258)
01-11-2007 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ringo
01-11-2007 1:25 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
Political ideologies are often untestable and arguably irrational so yes, I agree, the same sort of problems can be politically based.
However religious convictions such as the existence of the soul, the creation of the universe or the origins of man do generally have more to say about physical reality than do political ideologies.
Therefore they more often come into conflict with science than do political beliefs.
Any unprovable irrational belief CAN stand in the way of rational conclusions but religious ones by the very nature of their subject matter are more likely to come into conflict with scientific investigation.
The OP is about religion putting barriers in the way of scientific progress.
Whether political ideologies do this or not is another question. Can you really claim that religious beliefs never have, currently are not, or never will?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ringo, posted 01-11-2007 1:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 01-11-2007 5:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 86 of 221 (376268)
01-11-2007 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
01-11-2007 1:46 PM


Re: on barriers to knowledge.
Jar you are a highly rational believer and I do not doubt that there are many more of those such as yourself than there are those who oppose such things as stem cell research.
I am also genuinely delighted to hear that the opposition to stem cell research within the US governmental system as a whole is much less than I naively understood it to be.
However it does not detract from the fact, that we both agree upon, that the religious convictions of people in power are acting as a barrier to scientific research.
These convictions are irrational, they do relate to the physical world and they are untestable. That combination is not solely the domain of religion but it is a combination that is synonymous with religious belief and it is a dangerous combination.
It is not coincidence that the majority of organisations that you yourself highlight as examples of the 'Culture of Ignorance' are religious in basis.
I am not claiming that ALL those of faith are hindering science. I am not disputing that those rational believers such as yourself wish to aid the quest for knowledge.
What I am claiming is that the combination of extreme conviction, relatedness to the physical world (and therefore overlap with science), untestability and irrationality are more prevalent in religious convictions than any other and that this combination (whether religious or otherwise) will inevitably lead to barriers to science at some point.
Your complaint is not with religion, but with Cultures of Ignorance.
My complaint is that the very nature of religious belief all too readily leads to cultures of ignorance amongst those more lazy, less eduacted or less fortunate than the more rational believers such as yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 01-11-2007 1:46 PM jar has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 87 of 221 (376273)
01-11-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
01-11-2007 1:46 PM


Re: on barriers to knowledge.
As a more complex case study than the stem cell George W example used so far - Would you mind telling us what physical role you would attribut to God in terms of creation/Big Bang etc.
This is not some sort of underhand trick question, and in your particular case I suspect I am on a hiding to nothing, but I am interested to see if I could come up with what could be argued to be a "barrier" (or even hindrance) to scientifc investigation relating to even the most rational of irrational beliefs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 01-11-2007 1:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 01-11-2007 6:53 PM Straggler has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 88 of 221 (376281)
01-11-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Straggler
01-11-2007 4:02 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
Straggler writes:
Can you really claim that religious beliefs never have, currently are not, or never will?
Of course not. I'm saying it is not the only factor and probably not the most important factor.
Contrary to your claim, I would say that politics is more likely to stifle scientific inquiry - precisely because politics is more concerned with the "real world" than religion is.
I would also suggest that religion can only stifle scientific inquiry through political means. The church can foster individual ignorance but the legislature can make it a national policy.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 4:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 6:23 PM ringo has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 89 of 221 (376304)
01-11-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by ringo
01-11-2007 5:18 PM


Re: On Stem Cell Research
The very fact that we all partake in this forum Evolution V Creation is some (limited admittedly) evidence to the fact that science and religion are more likely to come into conflict on issues relating to physical reality than are political ideologies.
I have yet to see 'Socialism V Abiogenesis', 'Free Market Capitalism V Big Bang', Fascists V Artificial Intelligence' or any other such political ideology V scientific conclusions forums!!!
Religious convictions are irrational, untestable and MOST directly relate to matters of physical reality.
NOTE: By physical reality I do not mean the same as (I think) you do by the "real world" in any political sense. I mean purely where it overlaps with the methodical investigation of the physical/natural world that we call science.
It is true that political power is necessary to impose ANY legislatute (irrational and religious or otherwise) BUT it is the religious convictions of those in power that is the issue here.
Politicians are the product of society as well as the shapers. Their views are as influenced by the established organisations and attitudes in society as any other. Do not underestimate the historical or present power of the church. The reason the US has a leader with these attitudes but the the UK (for example) does not reflects the societies and relative influences within them.
It is impossible to prove or disprove GWs position on stem cell research exactly because it is untestable and religious. Even his political decisions will ultimately be put to the test in some sense (e.g. the US economy will benefit from his policies or it will not) but his attitude to stem cell research is rationally unfounded and untestable.
It is undoubtably a case of religious conviction resulting in a barrier to scientific investigation and it is not the first.
The OP asks whether religion stifles scienctific progress. It can, it has, it is doing and I have little doubt it will do in the future.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 01-11-2007 5:18 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-11-2007 6:57 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 90 of 221 (376312)
01-11-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Straggler
01-11-2007 4:47 PM


Re: on barriers to knowledge.
My complaint is that the very nature of religious belief all too readily leads to cultures of ignorance amongst those more lazy, less eduacted or less fortunate than the more rational believers such as yourself.
Your problem with that position is that I am definitely the product of a Religious Education.
As a more complex case study than the stem cell George W example used so far - Would you mind telling us what physical role you would attribut to God in terms of creation/Big Bang etc.
This is not some sort of underhand trick question, and in your particular case I suspect I am on a hiding to nothing, but I am interested to see if I could come up with what could be argued to be a "barrier" (or even hindrance) to scientifc investigation relating to even the most rational of irrational beliefs.
I believe that GOD created all that is, seen and unseen. When we study Evolution, or Cosmology, (I don't want to just limit it to the Big Bang because someday we may even get a glimpse beneath the structure we know as our Universe, for example: string theory and branes) we are learning How GOD did it.
I have got to ask. Throughout this thread I have provided links to outside Christian sources, the Christian Alliance for Progress, The Clergy Letter, A Catechism of Creation: An Episcopal Understanding and the Pastoral Letter from Bishop Sims. Have you checked out those sources?
I am not unique or all that unusual. There are many, many Christians that think much like me, some even here at EvC and even a Good Papist member from your side of the pond.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Straggler, posted 01-11-2007 4:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 3:12 AM jar has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024