Christianity, Knowledge and Science

It may well be right that moral overtones should supersede medical practices.
However any judgements made should be made based on concrete physical evidence. Not on the basis of unprovable, undetectable, untestable notions of an ethereal soul.

That's pretty silly. Pay Himself by killing Himself?Is it any wonder that people scoff at the "knowledge" that some Christians claim to have?

---

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

Ringo: It's not silly at all Ringo... it's just the nature of self sacrifice.You believe in it too... because you honor yourself for sacrificing your time to overturn these lies of mine and making things right. Which only proves I am not a liar.The only difference is self serving vs other serving.If my 3 yr old son ran into the street and I could, and did, push him out of the way of a car at the expense of my own life, I would be sacrificing myself for him.It would be 'Just', and as such be admired (by some anyway).Justice is God's virtue, so when God serves Himself, He serves others.Is that not knowledge Ringo?

It would indeed be noble to sacrifice your life for that of another in the car scenario you paint.But that is not quite comparable to the story under discussion.A better analogy would beYou create a rule of the road which
You decide that if transgressed this rule requires the sacrifice of a life as payment.
Another driver breaks that rule.
Rather than punish the driver in question directly you require that the driver run YOU over so as to meet the required 'payment'
You then hold the driver in question responsible for your deathIs that a noble sacrifice? Or given that you created the rule, you set the payment and you came up with the method of payment for this particular transgression is it just a silly sacrifice which makes no real sense.

So the problem seems to be the method of education as opposed to "Religion".If there was a difference in how I was educated I would imagine that it was in being taught that the goal of education is to find Answers to Question as opposed to finding Answers to Questions.Way back in, IIRC, the ninth grade (when I was 14 or 15 years old. You can figure out where that would be in your school system) we studied semantics and techniques of critical thought. It was basically a year of learning how to learn.That seems to be missing in much of the general US education system both public and private. We don't seem to teach folk how to learn.IMHO, that, more than religion, is the greatest barrier to knowledge. If the vast majority of a nation's population has never been taught how to learn, can you expect them to be good at it? Honestly don't know enough yet (and as an old fart who is not as spry as he once was I may never know enough) to have an opinion on that. But perhaps cavediver can give you his views on it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please Ringo. Don't let Rob derail yet another thread with his off topic nonsense.This thread is actually touching on some important points and Rob seems to be a master at drawing attention away from the topic to focus it on his little self.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is it really that hard to understand? Do you not perceive the knowledge therein?Your analgoy was indeed excellent. A fine piece of critical thinking if I do say so myself. But... You stopped too soon. Just continue your own reasoning Straggler, for it is flawless!In your analogy, I, playing the role of God as per your analogy, did not hold the driver responsible either. I took the responsibility. To hold either of YOU responsible would be to LET Ya'll be run over by judgement. Why do you hold the driver responsible for your foolishness (your running in the road)? Should the driver call you a fool because you ran into the street? It is a tragedy for both. A realization that there is danger about. who is to blame?I died so that you would see how serious running in the road is. And driving without extreme caution along the way. It will kill you or others. Both you and the driver should be humbled by the reality of life's dangers.But if part of you thinks, "What a fool! He died for me?" and you continue to play in the street, it is not I who condemn you but yourself. If the driver says, "It was not my responsibility" and continues to not pay attention to details, how have I condemned him? If he will not let me take responsibility for him, then he must pay. but it is not I who make him do so.And even that mistake in thinking, I sacrificed myself for. To invoke thought on your parts. To place the decision in your hands. To give you some time to ponder so that you need not destroy yourselves.If you will not accept my sacrifice for you, then you cannot be redeemed. You will continue in your with absolute intention to remain as you are. My sacrifice is the only way beside paying the piper yourself which I do not wish for you. I love you. That is for you to decide... Being God, I only do what is right. I will not force you to acknowledge me. If you do not, it is because of your own ambitions. I gave you dignity and worth by sacrificing myself. Why do you rip it apart and not acknowledge your worth?I will make such a profound sacrifice for the whole world; a glaring beacon, an unimaginable image, a time splitting moment, and a blinding light that the whole world will marvel at the utter mystery of it. 'What is that?', they will say. And I will send my people to you to unveil the mystery, since you do not seek me yourself, I will call you.You will have no excuse for not having accepted but your own self-condemning ambitions.John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

Not entirely No. Obviously we all wish for a better educated society of individuals who are trained to actually think for themselves. Should such an ideal society exist the problem of cultures of ignorance, for which I argue religion as the primary contributor, may well not exist (I am not entirely convinced that even in this educational paradise everyone possesses the faculties for such thinking but......never mind that for now)
However I am unaware of any society that has successfully achieved this idealised state of educational affairs for all (or even most).Religion by it's very nature (irrational, untestable and relating to the physical world) in the absence of the sort of critical thinking you discuss will inevitably lead to cultures of ignorance that will conflict with scientific conclusions.
It is unrealistsic to think everyone will be immune to such ideas through education so religion must take a large portion of the blame.How do you explain the fact that so many cultures of ignorance are religious in basis? Fair enough.
The pope at the time said the following regards the BB theory -"Thus, with that concreteness which is characteristic of physical proofs, [science] has confirmed the contingency of the universe and also the well-founded deduction as to the epoch when the world came forth from the hands of the Creator. Hence, creation took place. We say: therefore, there is a Creator. Therefore, God exists!"Does that count in your view count as placing a hindrance, if not quite a barrier, in the way of researching the posible causes of the BB? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yet I was taught those very skills you agree would help (critical thinking and learning how to learn) at a Christian school, a religious institution.How do you support your assertion that it is religion that is the culprit? You yourself qualify your statement with "...in the absence of the sort of critical thinking you discuss...".Does that not imply that the difference is the lack of critical thinking techniques and learning how to learn? When people have not been taught how to think critically and how to learn, they are more easily swayed by rhetoric and emotion.Religion can be used and over history has been used, and is being used today to oppose knowledge and to exalt ignorance.I do not deny that. I fight against that. I, and many, many other religious people strongly condemn that.The point is that it is not religion that is the problem but ignorance and cupidity. It is unfortunately far too easy to use religion as a way to con ignorant folk.The problem though is not religion but ignorance. No, I don't see that as much of a barrier. Keep researching. All we are learning is how GOD did it.Personally, I don't see that as much of a proof that GOD exists anyway.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

All I have argued is that the nature of religion lends itself all too well to anti science cultures of ignorance and as a result has been (and still is ad will no doubt continue to be) a major, arguably the major, contributing factor to such cultures.
I have not argued that ALL religion leads to cultures of ignorance or that a religious education preclude anyone from the sort of critical thinking required to avoid such cultures.
If any such claims had been made you have more than adequately refuted them BUT I have made no such claims. Why religion in particular in your view?
Does religion lend itself well to this sort of abuse because of it's very nature (irrational, untestable...etc. etc.)? I neither deny it nor doubt it.If anything I am attacking the nature of religion as being highly susceptible to abuse by those who wish to foster cultures of ignorance. I am not attacking those individuals who are religious per se. In the absence of the sort of idealised, and quite probably impossible, educational paradise for all that would be required to overcome this, religion itself must be largely to blame. No?If there were more critical thinking going on would cultures of ignorance be less of a problem? Yes, we both agree on that.
If there was no religion would the problem of cultures of ignorance, especially those in conflict with science (a la OP), be less? Yes - I believe so. I had a feeling you might not.
You don't think that someone who takes the popes words more seriously and literally than yourself could potentially be hindered in researching causes for the BB? Even if only in the sense of losing motivation for trying the research somethinh which has already been attributed to divine intervention?

You say: then Sorry but those two statements seem contradictory. and you asked...

quote:

---

Why religion in particular in your view?
Does religion lend itself well to this sort of abuse because of it's very nature (irrational, untestable...etc. etc.)?

---

But it is NOT particularly religion. Look at the major purges of intellectuals recently and you find Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot. You keep asserting that, but so far you have present no evidence to support that assertion and you also admit that I have refuted that very point. Sorry but crap. I had such an education, and in a religious environment, so how can religion be to blame? Sorry, again, look at the purges of intellectuals under Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. No. How would that stop research?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Right.
Lets recap briefly.The OP (to summarise and paraphrase) is asserting that religion acts as a barrier/hindrance to SCIENCE in particular.We both agree that cultures of ignorance can act as a barrier to science.Where we differ is that I maintain that religion is a major cause of such cultures and you obviously disagree.I will try to clarify my position by breaking it downThe fact that the very nature of religion is irrational and untestable means that -
A) Religion lends itself well to forming the basis of cultures of ignorance in exactly the same way poitical ideologies do.Do you disagree with that?The fact that religion invariably has something to say about the physical world (creation death etc. etc.) means that
B) Religion more directly and regularly comes into conflict with science than other equally irrational and unprovable non religious ideologies such as the political ideologies you specifyDo you disagree with that?The fact that we are on an Evolution V Creation forum is some testament to this position. I have never seen Fascism v Big Bang or Maoism V Artificial Intelligence forums or any other political ideology V scientific conclusion forums.This forum only exists because of the fact that religion is the basis of more anti science cultures of ignorance thinking than anything else!!! Why?The fact that I argue that the nature of religion LENDS itself well to fostering cultures of ignorance does not therefore mean that I am claiming ALL religion to BE a culture of ignorance. I am saying that religion is PRONE to this sort of abuse because of it's irrational and untestable nature.
Political ideologies LEND themselves to this sort of abuse for exactly the same reasons but that does not necessarily mean ALL political ideologies result in cultures of ignorance either.The same religion in the hands of rational enlightened believers will not result in such a culture whilst in the hands of the ignorant, pedantic or just plain stupid it very likely will. All are cultures of ignorance in one way or another. Indisputably. But did any of these ideologies come into direct conflict with scientific conclusions or was it just knowledge and intellect in general that was attacked?
Where there are actual examples of anti science thinking within political ideologies?
How do these compare in terms of longevity, scope and effect with comparable religious examples?
(e.g. the Islamic example in the Beyond Belief series, the persecution of Galileo, IDism, creationism etc.) ********************
You have refuted neither
A) That the nature of religion LENDS itself to fostering cultures of ignorance, nor
B) That religion based cultures of ignorance more directly overlap with the terriotory of science than do other such cultures.
********************** Calm down. If you honestly think I am talking crap and saying nothing worth debating then we should end this now.
The nature of your religion lends itself to abuse in the hands of the ignorant and stupid. Fortuntaley for you, you appear to be neither. There would have been less cultures of ignorance without that unholy trinity too.
However Purely in terms of cultures of ignorance that directly conflict with scientific thinking (as per the OP) - How do these compare in terms of longevity, scope and effect with comparable religious examples
(e.g. the Islamic example in the Beyond Belief series, the persecution of Galileo, IDism, creationism etc.) In the same way that attributing to God the stability of the solar system, arguably, stopped Newton developing pertubation theory.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, I think we are just going around in circles so I don't see much use in continuing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

For the recordI think your replies demonstrate that you have confused"LENDS itself to cultures of ignorance"With"NECESSITATES cultures of ignorance"And for that reason have therefore failed to refute either -A) That the nature of religion LENDS itself to fostering cultures of ignorance
B) That religion based cultures of ignorance more directly overlap with the terriotory of science than do other such cultures.Which are the basis of my position.But if you do not want to continue I obviously cannot make you.

Way back at the beginning of the thread I asked for examples of Christians who have contributed to our knowledge of the world around us.Now the field has broadened to just 'religion' in your above quote. This makes your position logically less supportable, as now you have to find examples of scientists who had NO religion.Can you even support your position by bringing in any evidence that science was hindered by a religion other than christianity? I would think this is important for proving that religion LENDS itself to cultures of ignorance. It doesn't seem likely that Christianity could be the only religion harboring ignorance, does it? That's why Cocytus had to bring in the part about the Bible stigmatizing 'knowledge' in the first place.Religious beliefs attempt to explain that which we don't understand...in the dark ages and for many years afterwards we knew very little about the nature of the world around us. Consequently much was attributed to a presumed God, and yes there was certainly a downfall to this in that anyone who had knowledge of something new was condemned with terms like witchery, sorcery, alchemy, and astronomy. Without the preseumption of the divine, there would have been no presumption of the diabolic.We have since learned that much can be discovered usig only natural means, but certainly not everything that we question has been answered. There is still plenty of room for faith even if we let down the barriers we think God told us not to cross. At this stage in history, the mysteries of life and the after-life are still sacred boundaries, which only our ethical, moral, or religious presumptions may hinder/help us in matters relating to these mysteries. There really is no 'educated' position to have concerning souls or the Ultimate/ultimate origins of the world. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.