News1 min ago
Religion ! Help Or Hindrance To Progress ?
38 Answers
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.
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.
Answers
// Who says that in this day and age (outside of Islam)? // You've got a point Khandro. The Christians used to say it as recently as within the last century (some still do), but most of them have now realised it's such a ludicrously impossible stance to take, that it simply can't go on if the religion is to survive in the modern world. We've therefore seen a frantic...
20:05 Sat 03rd Aug 2013
You could argue it's been the inspiration behind some great works of art, architecture, and music, but that's about as far as it goes.
If we're talking about the advancement of human knowledge in any other sphere, it can't possibly have been anything but a hindrance. It actively discourages the advancement of understanding about the nature of life and the universe, because it's based on dogma.
It says 'This book* contains all the knowledge you need. It is beyond question, because it is the word of god. It is the first and last word on every subject. To question it or deny it's truth is a crime against god'.
Anything that adopts such a position cannot possibly be a help to any kind of progress. It may provide a structure for people to feel secure within, as it takes away all the uncertainties, and gives you a set of rules to follow, but I wouldn't class that as progress.
(*it's usually a book, but not necessarily. It may just be the pronouncements of some self appointed holy men, but it amounts to the same thing)
If we're talking about the advancement of human knowledge in any other sphere, it can't possibly have been anything but a hindrance. It actively discourages the advancement of understanding about the nature of life and the universe, because it's based on dogma.
It says 'This book* contains all the knowledge you need. It is beyond question, because it is the word of god. It is the first and last word on every subject. To question it or deny it's truth is a crime against god'.
Anything that adopts such a position cannot possibly be a help to any kind of progress. It may provide a structure for people to feel secure within, as it takes away all the uncertainties, and gives you a set of rules to follow, but I wouldn't class that as progress.
(*it's usually a book, but not necessarily. It may just be the pronouncements of some self appointed holy men, but it amounts to the same thing)
-- answer removed --
// Who says that in this day and age (outside of Islam)? //
You've got a point Khandro. The Christians used to say it as recently as within the last century (some still do), but most of them have now realised it's such a ludicrously impossible stance to take, that it simply can't go on if the religion is to survive in the modern world.
We've therefore seen a frantic and rather unseemly scrabbling around to reinterpret the words of the book to try and make them have some relevance to a modern and educated society. For example, most recently the pope has intimated that it might not be so bad being gay after all.
You correctly point out that Islam is still lagging behind in this respect. That's because it's a good few hundred years behind the cutting edge of civilisation, and thrives in the kind of backward places where tribalist ignorant nonsense is still relevant to ordinary people's lives.
I don't know much about Judaism, but I think they stick pretty closely to the book - certainly the orthodox ones.
I understand you're a Buddhist. How would you say Buddhism does in relation to the OP? That's not a trick\hostile question or anything, I'm interested to know.
You've got a point Khandro. The Christians used to say it as recently as within the last century (some still do), but most of them have now realised it's such a ludicrously impossible stance to take, that it simply can't go on if the religion is to survive in the modern world.
We've therefore seen a frantic and rather unseemly scrabbling around to reinterpret the words of the book to try and make them have some relevance to a modern and educated society. For example, most recently the pope has intimated that it might not be so bad being gay after all.
You correctly point out that Islam is still lagging behind in this respect. That's because it's a good few hundred years behind the cutting edge of civilisation, and thrives in the kind of backward places where tribalist ignorant nonsense is still relevant to ordinary people's lives.
I don't know much about Judaism, but I think they stick pretty closely to the book - certainly the orthodox ones.
I understand you're a Buddhist. How would you say Buddhism does in relation to the OP? That's not a trick\hostile question or anything, I'm interested to know.
Khandro, //No, I won't fall for that one//
What on earth are you talking about? Fall for what one?
//you quote a website which you claim is denying "truth", tell me please, - making some clear positive assertion - why you think that is so. //
The link I gave is to the organisation that founded the Creation Museum. Clear enough?
http://
What on earth are you talking about? Fall for what one?
//you quote a website which you claim is denying "truth", tell me please, - making some clear positive assertion - why you think that is so. //
The link I gave is to the organisation that founded the Creation Museum. Clear enough?
http://
ludwig; //How would you say Buddhism does in relation to the OP? //
What I write is entirely my own view, after nearly 30 years since first taking refuge in Buddhism.
There are three main schools of Buddhism; Mahayana,(sometimes called Northern) Theravada (likewise, Southern) and Zen (Japan), all having much in common but differing in emphasis and iconography, and unlike some groups in other religions, showing no competition or conflict. Tibetan Buddhism is part of the Mahayana, from the earlier Tantric, and its spiritual leader is H.H. The Dalai Lama who is revered by all traditions. Mahayana is also divided into different schools; Gelugpa, Kagyu, etc. and the present 14th Dalai Lama; Tensin Gyatso, just happens to be from the Gelugpa school (who wear the familiar maroon and yellow robes) and as you will know is in exile, being forced by the illegal occupation by China of his country, to live in Dharamsala in Northern India.
In answer to your question; once every year H.H.The Dalai Lama invites to Dharamsala several eminent scientists working in various leading aspects of science, and from what I have read, they seem to all get much enjoyment from these exchanges. So he, and therefor 'Buddhism' is very well aware of all the latest thoughts on all aspects of science, and has said "When science proves Buddhist thought to be wrong, then we shall change Buddhism, but so far we have had no need to do this." In fact it can be said that Buddhist philosophy foreshadowed the latest scientific concepts. Found at the beginning of the Heart Sutra are the words;
'Form is no different from emptiness,
Emptiness is no different from form.
Form is precisely emptiness,
Emptiness is precisely form.'
'Two thousand years later western physicists agree. Science's concept of the universe was changed irrevocably by Quantum mechanics and relativity which questioned the separate identity of energy and matter. Our comfortable ideas of a universe made up of solid little bits of matter behaving in logical ways have been exploded, a particle is not a separate entity but a set of relationships. The world is an interconnected tissue of events, a dynamic unbroken whole, and scientists are no longer observers but participants.' One would give a lot to attend one of these Dharamsala meetings, and I hope that goes some way towards answering your question.
What I write is entirely my own view, after nearly 30 years since first taking refuge in Buddhism.
There are three main schools of Buddhism; Mahayana,(sometimes called Northern) Theravada (likewise, Southern) and Zen (Japan), all having much in common but differing in emphasis and iconography, and unlike some groups in other religions, showing no competition or conflict. Tibetan Buddhism is part of the Mahayana, from the earlier Tantric, and its spiritual leader is H.H. The Dalai Lama who is revered by all traditions. Mahayana is also divided into different schools; Gelugpa, Kagyu, etc. and the present 14th Dalai Lama; Tensin Gyatso, just happens to be from the Gelugpa school (who wear the familiar maroon and yellow robes) and as you will know is in exile, being forced by the illegal occupation by China of his country, to live in Dharamsala in Northern India.
In answer to your question; once every year H.H.The Dalai Lama invites to Dharamsala several eminent scientists working in various leading aspects of science, and from what I have read, they seem to all get much enjoyment from these exchanges. So he, and therefor 'Buddhism' is very well aware of all the latest thoughts on all aspects of science, and has said "When science proves Buddhist thought to be wrong, then we shall change Buddhism, but so far we have had no need to do this." In fact it can be said that Buddhist philosophy foreshadowed the latest scientific concepts. Found at the beginning of the Heart Sutra are the words;
'Form is no different from emptiness,
Emptiness is no different from form.
Form is precisely emptiness,
Emptiness is precisely form.'
'Two thousand years later western physicists agree. Science's concept of the universe was changed irrevocably by Quantum mechanics and relativity which questioned the separate identity of energy and matter. Our comfortable ideas of a universe made up of solid little bits of matter behaving in logical ways have been exploded, a particle is not a separate entity but a set of relationships. The world is an interconnected tissue of events, a dynamic unbroken whole, and scientists are no longer observers but participants.' One would give a lot to attend one of these Dharamsala meetings, and I hope that goes some way towards answering your question.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
News7 mins ago
Is Biden To Blame For Harris's Defeat?
News23 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.