|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity, Knowledge and Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Ideology is not necessarily based on religion. Scientific progress did not stop under Stalin's rule.
Under Stalin's rule the Soviet Union was transformed from an agricultural nation into a global superpower at the cost of millions of lives. The USSR's industrialization was successful in that the country was able to defend against and eventually defeat the Axis invasion in World War II, though at an enormous cost in human life; and in 1957, four years after Stalin's death, to put into orbit the first ever artificial satellite, Sputnik 1. Even Mao's ideology was not based on religion. So concerning the question in the OP.
This arguement thus asks the question: "Does religion make good people do bad things?" In this case "bad things" refers to standing in the way of progress. What you've shown is that leaders don't need religion to guide their ideologies which can lead them to do "bad things" or stand in the way of "progress". Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I have never said that ideology = religion
Nor have I said that communism under Stalin or Maosism are religions.Nor have I specifically claimed that scientific progress ceased under Stalin (it had an ideological preferences for Lamarckian style evolution over Darwinian which through inherent denial of fact did have a severly negative impact on agricultural scientific research and this could be considered a specific example of a culture of ignorance style barrier - but I agree that is not ALL scientific research) I have given examples of cultures of ignorance that have been borne from BOTH political ideologies and from faith based positions. I have then gone on to argue that faith based religious cultures of ignorance (as opposed to political ones) have more examples of putting up barriers to scientific progress specifically. I am not sure you have followed the thread fully before commenting.Eiether that or I am making myself very unclear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
But, in the long range of history, religion has not been a huge barrier to science, as many great discoveries have been made by people from China, India, Europe, Arab countries, as well as ancient Greece, etc...all the while being immersed in a religious culture. As I have repeatedly said throughout this thread - I do not claim that all religions necessarily result in cultures of ignorance OR that all those of faith are somehow personal barriers to scientific progress. BUT if Newton had not been so ready to attribute elements of gravity that we now have scientific understanding of to God how much further could he have gone with his theories?If Galileo had not faced the sort of opposition he did how much further could he have taken things. How many people that could have been great scientists if they had been in a position to ask the right questions were effectively stopped from doing so by living in cultures where the prevailing and unquestioning belief in a god already provided false answers to those questions?? We can never know how much religion has hindered science in this broadest of senses. What we do know is that the specific examples we do have of such barriers to science tend to be borne from cultures of ignorance that have a religious basis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
truthlover
It doesn't stigmatize good or evil as terrible, but it forbids taking up the knowledge of good and evil, which belongs to God. If it belongs to God then why did he place it in the garden?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CTD Member (Idle past 5869 days) Posts: 253 Joined: |
Regarding the original topic, this post on page 4 does the best, but doesn't put enough emphasis on the critical point.
The sin was one of disobedience. Nothing else. God Himself knows good from evil, and is good (the very Best), so having this knowledge cannot define one as evil. Thus it is a misinterpretation of the event which may lead some to equate knowledge with evil. In most cases, this should be easy to correct, through communication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Straggler writes: BUT if Newton had not been so ready to attribute elements of gravity that we now have scientific understanding of to God how much further could he have gone with his theories?If Galileo had not faced the sort of opposition he did how much further could he have taken things. Only they know Straggler. I don't know where they conversation can go if it is based on the hypothetical, and if those who obviously were not letting religion stop them from wanting to learn about the natural world, are not examples of anything. What kind of examples do you want? Do you want to say that only those who were not bound by religion in any sense were real scientists, or made the kind of progress that they 'should have'? Do you think that Newon would have stopped if he had somewhere else to go? Do you think that Gallileo would have gone further if he was not afraid? He was already outside the church. How much more out can you be? And what do you think would stop someone from leaving a religion? Plenty of scientists did so. If Gallileo hypothetically couldn't explore more because he was limited by religion, well, he was limited by himself. He was limited by his own abilities, and his own beliefs, and there is no point theorizing what any of us could be if we were someone else. It is entirely ludicrous in this day to imagine a person being imprisoned for life just for opposing a religion that they weren't bound to believe in the first place. Gallileo did not believe the earth revolved around the sun. He wasn't bound by doctrine. If he or Newton or anyone else choose to be bound by some of the other doctrines. they limited themselves. What you need to do is determine if religious belief is the only limiting agent or the greatest. I believe you have tried to address that. You feel that religion has more boundaries than any other life-style. Btu you may as well ask how many people were limited from being great scientists because of finances, or education, or family concerns. We limit ourselves. And by the way, science is good. It is not necessarily the best thing in the world for a man to devote himself to. I would rather there be more people who were not self-limited in their humanitarian goals. I only say this because your quote;
Straggler writes: We can never know how much religion has hindered science in this broadest of senses. Is so much a pitting of science and religion against each other, and even to the extent of hypothetical woulda coulda shouldas, as to make science seem like the ultimate goal of humanity. Isn't it a bit more vital to ask questions like how much society has hindered people from achieving in general? Religious society, ignorant society, a society which wants only pleasure and money, sex, immediate gratification? I know that is not the topic, but I can't help wondering from your questions; if religion has hindered science, and right this minute we should be more advanced in scientific knowledge, would this be a better world? Are we right now living in a better world than we were before science? In some ways, yes. In other ways, we seem stuck at the same old problems. In the future, people will view us as limited. This is not to say that you can't explore only one thought in a thread. It is a relevent thought. But if you examine the evidence and conclude that science has marched on in the face of religion, and that there is no where to go but to the hypothetical, maybe the best thing to do is to say that relgion, like anything else in a person's life, can limit their achievements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Maybe you don't understand theology (in this case theodicy), so let me clarify what it is that you HAVE TO BELIEVE in order to be a Christian. This isn't even up for debate, it's dogmatic. To be a Christian you have to believe that 1) there was perfection in the garden (earth) 2) perfection means that there was no such thing as evil on earth 3) this is the case because God (as infinite as he/she is) cannot CONTAIN, and therefore cannot CREATE, evil 4) evil was created my humans because they ate of the tree of knowledge. What theological school taught you what a person has to believe to be a Christian? In order to be a Christian you only have to be born again and live a life like Christ did. Christian mean Christ like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
He wasn't bound by doctrine. If he or Newton or anyone else choose to be bound by some of the other doctrines. they limited themselves Limiting oneself is quite possible but if the entire society/culture in which you live will persecure and ostricise you for disbelieving in the irrational in favour of the rational then it is hardly surprising if conformity is the choice you make. Such is the nature of a culture of ignorance.
You feel that religion has more boundaries than any other life-style. I feel that cultures in which religious indoctrination is compulsory and in which rational opposition is a cause for persecution does indeed setup boundaries to science. It is regards religion and boundaries to science that the OP specifically relates. Hence my comments on the subject. If you feel that my arguments for religion as a potential boundary to science and the historical examples this is based on do not reflect the truth, then give me some specific examples of other direct cultural conflicts that science has had that are not effectively science vs religion???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
I will try to make this my last post in this thread.
I responded originally to the OP because I felt that it was a straw man argument to claim that religion is set-up as intrinsically anti-knowledge. I will not argue that sometimes religion has stepped in the path of progress. Belief in Biblical inerrancy such as that which imprisoned Galilleo, is a sad limit to science and to religion itself. But that was a completely different mind-set than what we have now. Gallileo was not seen as a scientist in the honest sense we see him now. Folks then didn't trust science as anything which gives evidence or anything close to veracity. They saw it as quackery, and an attempt to cook up a crock of stew in your own fallible brain and sell it to others. What I mean to say is that religion suffered the same stunted growth as science did. And sure, the whole thing became a cult of ignorance which fed off of itself. If there was no ignorance, there would be no ignorant people limiting the Bible in the way they did and still do. Aside from inerrancy, you get into ethics. Ethics stop progress, religious ethics or otherwise.
Straggler writes: If you feel that my arguments for religion as a potential boundary to science and the historical examples this is based on do not reflect the truth, then give me some specific examples of other direct cultural conflicts that science has had that are not effectively science vs religion??? So if you look at ethics in general, progress has stopped many times, or slowed down. We have environmental concerns, PETA people, humanitarian concerns, etc. No one complains because scientific progress was stopped when we stopped allowing people to experiment on Africans. No one complains when we try to work around using animals to test products. There are things that are not morally or ethically right that will constantly turn up as we progress. We WILL have to slow down and evaluate them, and we will have to stop going relentlessly on the same path when we discover that there are drawbacks. What we are seeing is that people who don't agree with other people's ethics are complaining, but not complaining about the obvious good sense that science must use in general. In other words, progress is not the only concern, and religious people are not the only ones concerned.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I responded originally to the OP because I felt that it was a straw man argument to claim that religion is set-up as intrinsically anti-knowledge.
Well religion (at least the main examples) are all very pro, if not in fact wholly reliant upon, faith and belief in things which they define as unprovable.This is the very antithesis of rational thought. Although it is quite possible to be a believer and still be rational and scientific about the real world, surely you can see that it will take a certain level of inteligence, education and insight to restrict the mindset of belief and faith to ones religion and not extend it in ways that are effectively anti-scientific??? Ethics stop progress, religious ethics or otherwise.
So if you look at ethics in general, progress has stopped many times, or slowed down. We have environmental concerns, PETA people, humanitarian concerns, etc. No one complains because scientific progress was stopped when we stopped allowing people to experiment on Africans.
Yes ethical considerations have arguably stood in the way of specific experimentation. And quite rightly.Nobody is arguing that scientific progress should be the overriding factor in any scenario no matter how inhumane!! The benefits of treating our fellow human beings with respect far outweighs any scientific benefit. BUT if we self impose well thought out restrictions on ways to progress science through enlightened thinking that is quite different to ill conceived religiously based barriers of ignorance that benefit no-one at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
If it belongs to God then why did he place it in the garden? It's an allegory. There was no garden, and no tree was placed there by God or anyone else. The point was to say that the knowledge of good and evil belongs to God, not man. That's why eating from it made them like God. It wasn't good for that to be so, so they were punished. It's just a story to teach a lesson. That's the lesson. Knowledge is not the culprit in the story. Man deciding good and evil outside of the will of God is the culprit in the story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
What theological school taught you what a person has to believe to be a Christian? In order to be a Christian you only have to be born again and live a life like Christ did. Christian mean Christ like. Help me out here as a person reading your argument with someone else. What's your point here? The same book that mentions being born again says numerous things about belief (Jn 1:12, Jn 3:16, Jn 3:36, etc., etc., etc.). I can't figure out why you said this. You can not believe in Christ and be a Christian? So I can reject Buddha's teachings and be a Buddhist? What are you saying here?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: That's only according to you and your beliefs, though. I was raised a Roman Catholic, which is a sect of Christianity, and there was no requirement to be "born again" that you speak of. Yet, I considered myself a Christian, and all of the other Catholics I knew considered themselves Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I'm pretty sure that you can, actually. You'd just not get very far along on the path to Enlightenment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4059 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
I was raised a Roman Catholic, which is a sect of Christianity, and there was no requirement to be "born again" that you speak of. As a technicality, the RCC teaches that you are born again at baptism. It seems clear enough that the early church fathers used born again and baptism interchangeably, though it is argued as to whether they baptized infants at the time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024