Religion ! Help Or Hindrance To Progress ?

[modeller]

I'm not thinking about the spiritual aspect but at a practical level. The findings of Copernicus ,and Galileo were held back for years because their spiritual beliefs clashed with the church similarly with Newton and Darwin . Today stem cell and GM research is being affected for religious reasons.
Throughout history religion has been linked to all spheres of learning,
writing, reading, mathematics, medicine , science, etc. but overall has it been a positive or negative influence.

[Octavius]

Sometimes positive, sometimes negative. Like history itself.

[chrisgel]

I can't think of any instance when religion has assisted progress. Their may well have been religious scientists, designers and engineers who have helped but that's hardly the same.

[jim360]

Something worth bearing in mind when you say that the findings of Galileo and Copernicus were "held back for years", is that Galileo in particular did not "find" in the strictest sense that the Earth went around the Sun. He deduced it, based on the logic that, as his moons went around Jupiter, so did small things orbit larger things. This contradicted the Church's model, of course, but also did so with no direct evidence. Ironically, the trial appears to have centred on the relative scientific merits, as they were understood at the time. This is not to say that Religious considerations did not enter into the debate, and had a far greater role than they should, but that was the way of things, and Galileo wasn't straying away from using the religious arguments either. A further point is that he was invited to put his case forward, in a neutral manner, by the pope. Unfortunately, Galileo uses the name "Simplicio" to represent the church's viewpoints, and then makes him simple and intellectually incompetent. Ultimately, Galileo's viewpoints were suppressed because he insulted the Church, rather than just because he disagreed with it.

This is just one case, and can be rationalised as I outlined above, but in general religion has probably been a hindrance to progress -- most starkly when Darwin formed his theory of Evolution and then voluntarily suppressed it for 20-odd years because he knew how religiously controversial it was going to be.

[Octavius]

Gallieo saw his work as a religious calling initially and had disputes with religionists and secularists. His work was published when it was ready, only afterwards did the church put him on trial - so "held back"?, possibly yes, possibly no, but if he was then it was the society of the time made up of religious and secularists that rejected his ideas.

[FredPuli43]

Isn't electricity an example? Were not some researchers deterred or prevented because they were under the rules of the Catholic church but, fortunately, others were not? So long as any religion holds that the world is as it is because God made it so, that religion will be prone to preventing any deep investigation into its mysteries.

[Octavius]

"some researchers deterred or prevented because they were under the rules of the Catholic church"

They were the Jesuits, not prevented, maybe just slower at declaring their results.

[Khandro]

It certainly was, but then came the Enlightenment, - the year Galileo died Isaac Newton was born - and then Darwin and a lot of superstition was rejected, but it doesn't necessarily mean that all aspects of religion must be jettisoned.
It is easy to mock beliefs of old, but have you ever tried to consider what it must have been like for humans to observe their world before the Enlightenment? Take one example; how did the planets manage to "float" in space?

[Khandro]

Fred; // So long as any religion holds that the world is as it is because God made it so, that religion will be prone to preventing any deep investigation into its mysteries.// Well it didn't deter Newton, who saw a 'monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.'

[modeller]

Where does religion stand concerning the progress on these problems:
1. Population growth.
2. Spread of AIDS
3. Experiments on organisms involving gene manipulation.

[mikey4444]

If organised religion had its way, we would all still be living in huts, praying that the tooth fairy comes and carry us all off to Neverland. Science and religion are complete opposites surely ?

[modeller]

mikey // Science and religion are complete opposites surely //

I don't know about complete opposite but there is little empathy.
I think God and religion are actually separate concepts. God is in the mind but very real for Theists. However it lacks substance and holy books are produced by man to make the God concept more real. That is done almost immediately in the bible. "" God made man in his image "" That immediately gave the concept some substance. After that the next 1000 pages uses social rules and stories to back up the original concept.
Inevitaby holy books reflected the world as it was when they were written and IMO every year the conflict between them and science gets greater.

That's why I asked the question. There is this divide so what of the
future ?
I think one thing Atheists should remember God for a Theist is very real.

[Khandro]

mikey444; //Science and religion are complete opposites surely ?// It depends on what you mean by science? The word science as used in its wide sense, as in the German - 'Wissenschaft' meaning 'any systematic investigation,' would imply that there is no reason for opposition.

[Spoonboy]

Religion helps those who need it. For the rest of us, it is pure bunkum. But, why should we stop, or try to stop, believing in what they wil?!!

[Spoonboy]

Laptop is playing up again: that last part should read - why should we stop, or try to stop, "people" believing in what they will.

[ludwig]

I think you need to define what you mean by 'progress' first of all.

[naomi24]

Spoonboy, people are free to believe whatever they want to believe - the problem arises when they insist on imposing that belief, or the results of it, on others.

[mikey4444]

We are in danger of debating angels on pin heads here. Most world religions have a creation myth. Some are dafter than others but none of them are science based. Ask a born-again American Southern Baptist how old the earth is and did early man chase dinosaurs for his lunch. Unless the answer is " no, of course not " then no further questions need be asked.

Of course theists believe that their God is real....if they didn't they wouldn't be believers !

[modeller]

mickey //Of course theists believe that their God is real....if they didn't they wouldn't be believers ! //
I have found that's not quite as clear as we may think. According to polls in the UK when asked a straight question 'Do you believe in God'? about 50% said yes but when asked ' Do you attend a place of worship that dropped to 7%. So when I said God is real for Theists maybe I should have said that for practising Theists ( 7% ) God is a part of their daily lives.

ludvig //I think you need to define what you mean by 'progress' first of all. // I dont want to be pedantic and its difficult to be precise but IMO I would say where it had the potential to be an advantage to people, plants and animals. A cure for an obscure disease may only affect few of these in the world but it's progress. In many cases it's the potential that's more important rather than any obvious immediate effects.
Which is where religion's attitude to any particular research can be vital.
In the US some research departments for good or bad have closed down because of church opposition.

On a global level two of the least religious countries in the world
are Sweden 65% and Denmark 61% and both have very high levels of research. ( info. US 19% non religious ) .

[modeller]

I should have added that a Theist friend of mine said gene research was wrong. Not because the results might not be beneficial but because we shouldn't be ' playing God.

[Khandro]

modeller; It's a bit churlish of you friend to suggest all gene research should be abandoned on religious grounds, however when Crick & Watson were constructing many weird models in their search for DNA one of the criteria for abandoning some was that, because they were searching for the very building blocks of life itself, they 'just were not beautiful enough'. When you look at the double helix you can see how magnificent it is in it's beauty.
[It's almost enough to make believe in God! :-) ]