ChatterBank3 mins 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.'
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.
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.
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 !
Of course theists believe that their God is real....if they didn't they wouldn't be believers !
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 ) .
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; 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! :-) ]
[It's almost enough to make believe in God! :-) ]
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.