Christianity, Knowledge and Science

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.

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?

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.

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.

Why?
The religious advocates on this thread seem very keen to work in black and white terms. Scientists can be religious and achieve great things but if they reach a point where they are willing to effectively stop and say "God did it" then at that point they have been hindered by their faith. The 'Beyond Belief' links we have been discussing cite many such examples with Copernicus, Newton, etc. being the most obvious ones. Watch the seminar links - they are worth watching. The vid links earlier in this thread discuss Islam in this context at some length.Basically if you have an ideology based on unprovable assertions (religious, political or whatever) then obviously it will be more prone to fosteing cultures of ignorance than one in which evidence and reasoning is at the foundation. In other words all that religion has left to cling onto are those areas which science has yet to provide full answers for. The gods of the gaps.

Firstly I am not claiming that conclusions about the physical world are evil, that science has all the answers to everything or that I personally am a fountain of all intelligence, knowledge and wisdom. I am not sure why you feel that I am claiming any of these things but the fact is that I am not.
My points remain and you have failed to refute any of them.A) ANY ideology or faith that is by nature irrational and unprovable is going to be easier to be usurped by those fostering cultures of ignorance than one based on objective evidence.
B) The vast majority of such cultures of ignorance have been caused by just such ideologies/faiths (whether political or religious)
C) Can you give any example of a culture of ignorance that is not rooted in just such an ideology or faith?
D) Cultures of ignorance that arise as a result of religious faith based thinking are more likley to conflict with science exactly becuase both are making conclusions about the physical world. They are competing over the same terriotory. Political ideologies are geneally less concerned with physical relity than religious ones (creation of life, creation of the universe, existence/nature of the soul are all physical and potentially scientific questions)
E) Therefore religion, in the form of the cultures of ignorance it has at times fostered, has acted as a barrier to science as per the OP question.No - Not all those of faith are necessarily part of a culture of ignorance.
No - Not all religious beliefs result in cultures of ignoranceBUT - If you have a culture in which unquestioning faith in the unprovable is at root considered a virtue it should come as no suprise that this culture is more prone to being hijacked into one of ignorance than one in which evidential support is considered to be the basis of conclusions about the world.

Bujitsu Hi and welcome
The problem with your position is the problem with creationism as a whole and a question of what is science and what is not.Those you cite have all drawn their conclusions from biblical sources and then interpreted physical evidence in the light of those conclusions in such a way as to support them. As far as they are concerned the truth is known it is just a case of convincing others that they are right by dressing up various conclusions and studies in such a way as to make them look scientific. This however is not science.
The root of all scientific conclusions MUST be physical evidence. The test of scientific conclusions MUST be prediction, independent corroboration and verification/refutation.
The theory of evolution can be demonstrated as being the result of a long and winding process of all of these combined.
Prediction, refutation and any sort of independent corroboration are notably absent from ANY creationist theory (can you show me a testable creationist prediction?).
Without the bible there is no reason at all to believe in any form of YEC. There is no physical evidence for it. In fact there is much against it.A series of implausable and essentially untestable and uncorrborated "alternative" explanations to evolutionary phenomenon do not constitute a rival theory.
Rather it is a desperate bid by those blinded by faith to convince themselves and the rest of us that their beliefs should hold the same authority and veracity as those conclusions derived from the scientific method.In terms of the OP - The fact that those fostering faith based cultures of ignorance (i.e. creationism in this case) feel the need to dress up their irrational assertions in the clothes of science I would suggest means that such cultures are in retreat. Albeit slowly and with a struggle.

Broadly I would say that a culture of ignorance is a culture where reasoned and rational evidence based knowledge is supressed in favour of ideological or faith based assertions.Stalin and Mao fostered such cultures by actually going so far as exterminating those educated and/or brave enough to oppose their view of society.
The beyond belief seminars discusses medieval Islam in terms of the suppression of science. It also highlights the persecution of Galileo and Christianity at the time of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton as less violent examples of cultures of ignorance. In these latter examples it is the desire to find a role for God and reluctance to continue asking questions that acts as the barrier to increased scientific knowledge. Faith based barriers. In the broadest sense political doctrines probably have the more extreme examples of fostering cultures of ignorance.
However in the context of this thread the question directly relates to barriers to scientific knowledge in particular rather than knowledge in general.
Here, because of the common terriotory, (or as you put it "viewing the conglomerate of nature differently from one another") those cultures of ignorance that are religiously based have more direct barriers to science than do political ones. In summary1) Religious convictions are based on the irrational and untestable
2) Irrational and untestable belief systems are more easily used to create cultures of ignorance than are those based on reason, evidence and pragmatism
3) Religious based cultures of ignorance more directly come into conflict with science and create barriers to scientific progress than do those based on politcal ideologies because religious assertions have more to say about the physical world which is the domain of science.Which of these do you actually disagree with?

Well that is exactly the point.
If they had not been so willing to attribute the scientifically explainable to God they could have gone even further in their discoveries. Faith was the barrier!!!
The fact that they lived in a time and place where faith was all but compulsory is exactly why this restriction can be said to be due to a 'culture of ignorance' rather than merely individual blinkeredness. I agree that man's disposition is a complex one but this thread specifically relates to religion as a hindrance to scientific progress so it is SOLELY that which I am concerning myself with. Granted - Man's underying disposition may be at root the cause of all cultures of ignorance.
BUT in the context of THIS thread, which diiscusses barriers to SCIENCE alone, there are more religious examples than any other of this disposition manifesting itself in practical terms.Thus my conclusion that religion is the primary component in cultures of ignorance that have specifically put up barriers to scientific progress in particular. As per the question in the OP)

I have never said that ideology = religionNor 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.

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.

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. 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???

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??? 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.