Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity, Knowledge and Science
bujitsu
Junior Member (Idle past 6236 days)
Posts: 22
Joined: 02-28-2007


Message 181 of 221 (387649)
03-01-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by ringo
03-01-2007 5:41 PM


Re: Biblical Creationism, YEC and Belief in a world-wide Flood are ignorance at BEST
And you are proving me correct. I provided a list, you ignored it. You are right, you are not an astronaut. That is about all we can agree on. The rest of your post is pointless to respond to, because no matter what I say, you will off-handedly reject it. You won't take my word, yet I am supposed to take yours. You say everything ICR, or anyone like them has done has been viewed and rejected. Again, so I am to take your word on this. Nope, sorry, no can do. Your turn to provide facts. I answered the questions you originally posted for me, I am not going to keep running around the same bush.
Sorry, I did provide evidence, you just refused to look at it because it is associated with an organization you think is inept. You are entitled to your opinion. Now you know how many feel about evolutionists. Some think you are inept, so anything you say is viewed accordingly. (I am not saying that is the case, I am just using your view in reverse).
Sorry, again you are wrong. I do not need to come up with an alternate theory if I believe the evidence does not support the current one. "A Hard-boiled egg in Cleveland" is not responsible for gravity. I looked at the evidence, and the evidence does not prove that to be true. I do NOT need to come up with a different theory about gravity. All I had to do was show why I believed the current theory wrong. Which has been done. But of course, you don't buy that either. Because obviously no one could disagree with your findings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ringo, posted 03-01-2007 5:41 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by ringo, posted 03-01-2007 6:31 PM bujitsu has not replied
 Message 186 by jar, posted 03-02-2007 9:36 AM bujitsu has not replied
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 8:58 AM bujitsu has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 182 of 221 (387652)
03-01-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by bujitsu
03-01-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Biblical Creationism, YEC and Belief in a world-wide Flood are ignorance at BEST
bujitsu writes:
I do not need to come up with an alternate theory if I believe the evidence does not support the current one.
Once again, repeating it don't make it true.
If there are problems with a theory, you fix them. You don't just throw it out before you look for a different one.
If there are problems with the theory of evolution, it evolves into a different theory of evolution. Throwing out the whole thing would be like tearing down your house because the hinges squeak.
I looked at the evidence, and the evidence does not prove that to be true.
We hear that all the time around here. I don't remember a single example where it turned out to be true. Invariably, somebody decides that evolution is wrong and then they "look at the evidence". But their idea of looking at the evidence is memorizing a few pages of drivel from ICR/AIG.
Does Christianity itself promote/require ignorance? I don't think so.
Are there people who would rather ignore the evidence than take the time to understand it? Yes.
Do those people gravitate toward Christianity?
Those who won't put any effort into understanding science usually won't put any effort into understanding Christianity either.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by bujitsu, posted 03-01-2007 6:02 PM bujitsu has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 221 (387675)
03-01-2007 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Straggler
01-13-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Is it religion?
We both agree that cultures of ignorance can act as a barrier to science.
Very true, but why must "religion" (an ambiguous term at best) get the sole ownership of abject misery in the world? By what mechanism do you measure "progress?" I think you might be willing to agree that for every time some one bastardized any given religion, that the original intent of said tenet was a great moral good. Would you be inclined to agree with that?
The 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.
Then you can't conflate the issues when it then becomes apparent that it is man's own innate desires that foster ignorance.
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 specify
But science has EVERYTHING to say about the physical world. Would you then indict all of science as culpable for all of the problems in the world? I would sincerely hope not.
This forum only exists because of the fact that religion is the basis of more anti science cultures of ignorance thinking than anything else!!!
Well, tell that to RAZD, Jar, Jazzns, and the person who made it possible for you relay that to us-- Percy, all of whom are theists. Every one of them believe as you do concerning science. I've yet to meet anyone on this forum, creationist, evolution, or otherwise, who was "anti-science." They may subscribe to "bad science," but in no sense does it mean they are anti-science.
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.
Human nature is prone to ignorance. Or are you so arrogant that you honestly believe that you know every seminal aspect of life?
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.
What then does not lend itself to ignorance in your view?
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.
Here's the problem Straggler. When you speak about others being ignorant, you no doubt exclude yourself from ignorance. And so you set yourself up as the judge and deliberator on what is ignorant and what is not. A cozy place for you, but not entirely in keeping with truth. Is it then possible that you are ignorant? Or are you immune to it? If so, why?
But it is NOT particularly religion. Look at the major purges of intellectuals recently and you find Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot.
Exactly. So then religion or politics isn't the issue, is it? What is the issue?
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?
You make it so that your gnosis is strictly secular and exculpatory from any ill-thinking, almost has if you have some sort of esoteric advantage over people.
I know what you are saying, but to me, religion is the front-- its the mouthpiece used when people feel differently about any one thing. For instance, even in radical Islam, the belief in Allah is not the cause of the violence. Its just the mouthpiece. Their are many internal reasons and forces at work, such as societal perception, moral implications, political beliefs, etc.
There would have been less cultures of ignorance without that unholy trinity too.
????? Can you expound, please?
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.)
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking what the implications are if religion were to persist unchecked or without secular interjection?
In the same way that attributing to God the stability of the solar system, arguably, stopped Newton developing pertubation theory.
Here is my view. I do not think that God controls every affair in the universe. I believe for the most part, God lets what will be, be. If we were to hastily ascribe every little thing that happens to God, we would have a micromanaging god who has nullified our own freewill. In this way, I happen to agree with Newton.
However, this is where a purely secular train of thought fails, IMO. If we were to try and figure out what exactly what love is, we might want to study the brain. When we flash images of loved one's on a screen in front of a subject in a CT scan, we might notice various parts of the brain lighting up with activities as endorphines are rushing around and synapses are firing, sending and receiving impulses. From this study, we might conclude that this process IS love. But is it? Or is it simply the vehicle, or the mechanism, or the medium through which love is animated? If we were to confuse mechanisms with causation, I think we would be lapsing in to that state of ignorance you deride.

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 7:56 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 8:36 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 221 (387680)
03-01-2007 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by bujitsu
03-01-2007 5:02 PM


Gravity And Evolution?
I know someone is going to argue about that. My point is, we have discovered certain 'facts' about gravity and the way it works. Years from now, it may come about that our understanding was...not complete. But, most (probably all) scientists of today that have studied the evidence, agree with the majority finding. We all seem to agree that the evidence points in one direction, at least. Which is why we can on a base level make the statement: The law of gravity is a fact. (Even though it could one day be proven to be in error...in theory.)
Evolution, and its surrounding theories, are a best guess from the evidence provided. (In some peoples view.) I have no problem with that. I have no problem with someone saying that, at this time, from all the evidence, we believe that evolution is the most obvious way this has all come about. (Even though there are those that disagree.) What I do have a problem with is when people say; "Evolution is a fact." Nope, not according to our understanding of facts. It is an accepted theory of how things happened.
But I don't see what distinction you are making between evolution and gravity here. The things you say about gravity: e.g. the law of gravity might be prove to be false; it might be found that our understanding was incomplete; most scientists agree with the majority view; the evidence points in one direction ... all seem to be true of evolution. Indeed, evolution appears to have some advantages over gravity in this respect.
And the things you say about the theory of evolution could with an equal degree of accuracy be said about the theory of gravity.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by bujitsu, posted 03-01-2007 5:02 PM bujitsu has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4059 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 185 of 221 (387730)
03-02-2007 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by sidelined
01-11-2007 8:21 AM


Does it also stigmatize good as being terrible since the fruit was of the knowledge of both good and evil?
It doesn't stigmatize good or evil as terrible, but it forbids taking up the knowledge of good and evil, which belongs to God.
I have heard a lot of interpretations of this allegorical story, both from Christians and non-Christians. None of the ones I know stigmatizes knowledge in general.
The most common approach I think I've heard is that God decrees what's good and evil, not we ourselves. However, even that doesn't have to be accurate. My own church would be prone to saying that God wants us to live spiritually, moved by the life that he gives us, not spend our time judging right and wrong.
Daniel Quinn has an interesting one, too, saying that it's about civilized people, who used to live free as part of nature, but then became farmers and citizens of cities, started decreeing how everyone else should live and conquering the world like they were gods or something, and so were banished from the paradise, earth, that they used to be a part of. Right or not, it's pretty creative.
Either way, I don't think the interpretation that the garden story stigmatizes all knowledge as bad is a good one. There's nothing in that passage that calls us to reject science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by sidelined, posted 01-11-2007 8:21 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by sidelined, posted 03-10-2007 10:37 AM truthlover has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 186 of 221 (387732)
03-02-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by bujitsu
03-01-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Biblical Creationism, YEC and Belief in a world-wide Flood are ignorance at BEST
I do not need to come up with an alternate theory if I believe the evidence does not support the current one. "A Hard-boiled egg in Cleveland" is not responsible for gravity.
You are still confusing two entirely different things.
Denying Evolution is a fact is identical to denying that gravity exists.
When you begin talking about theories of what causes gravity, then you are dealing with the Theory of Evolution.
Two separate subjects.
Someone who denies the FACT of Evolution is identical to someone who denies the FACT of Gravity. They are the people who think they can step off a bridge and walk on air.
What would you call someone who believes that Gravity is not a Fact and that they can simply step off the edge of bridge and not fall?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by bujitsu, posted 03-01-2007 6:02 PM bujitsu has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 187 of 221 (387868)
03-03-2007 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Hyroglyphx
03-01-2007 9:07 PM


Re: Is it religion?
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 ignorance
BUT - 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-01-2007 9:07 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 11:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 188 of 221 (387870)
03-03-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by bujitsu
03-01-2007 6:02 PM


Re: Biblical Creationism, YEC and Belief in a world-wide Flood are ignorance at BEST
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by bujitsu, posted 03-01-2007 6:02 PM bujitsu has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 221 (387884)
03-03-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Straggler
03-03-2007 8:36 AM


Re: Is it religion?
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.
You don't ordinarily come off as particularly arrogant or hostile, but in this thread it exuded these inequalities.
My points remain and you have failed to refute any of them.
How can one refute talking points that are basically opinions? You speak about your opinions as if they were fact.
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.
If its easier to usurp then where is the concern? Some people are gullible and don't know it. Other people think they aren't gullible and don't know otherwise. Some people think they are really sharp and have it all together when they really don't. Such thins are going to be, whether it be religious dogma or something more seemingly benign.
Therefore, I feel compelled to ask why the indictment falls on religion to be the primary offender in spreading the "cult of ignorance."
B) The vast majority of such cultures of ignorance have been caused by just such ideologies/faiths (whether political or religious)
Can you pinpoint this to any particular religion or denomination as a reference?
C) Can you give any example of a culture of ignorance that is not rooted in just such an ideology or faith?
I'm still unclear on what qualifies as a "culture of ignorance," because we all are ignorant in some respects.
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.
They aren't competing over the same territory, they are simply viewing the conglomerate of nature differently from one another. One group says that everything came to be from absolute nothingness. The other group that says that breaks the very scientific laws we all must adhere to. It is by God who animates and creates the universe. The other group counters by positing that it is untestable and unprovable. The other group responds by saying something cannot come from absolute nothingness. The other group says, "then where did God from?" And around and around it goes in a big circle. I'm not sure why either group is more or less informed. Perhaps we should consider who and what are informing us.
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)
That's probably because political ideologies are more concerned with politics and sociology.
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.
Why a "barrier?" I defer to Thomas Edison who said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent." He was probably even understating our own ignorance. I still don't see why you assert that religion, which could mean any number of things, fosters ignorance. The way I see it is no matter what we ascribe, we foster ignorance in some capacity.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 8:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 191 by jar, posted 03-04-2007 12:06 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 190 of 221 (387900)
03-03-2007 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Hyroglyphx
03-03-2007 11:55 AM


Re: Is it religion?
I'm still unclear on what qualifies as a "culture of ignorance," because we all are ignorant in some respects.
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.
Therefore, I feel compelled to ask why the indictment falls on religion to be the primary offender in spreading the "cult of ignorance."
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.
How can one refute talking points that are basically opinions? You speak about your opinions as if they were fact.
In summary
1) 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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 6:46 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 196 by purpledawn, posted 03-06-2007 7:43 AM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 191 of 221 (388046)
03-04-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Hyroglyphx
03-03-2007 11:55 AM


Culture of Ignorance = Most Christian Schools in the US
I'm still unclear on what qualifies as a "culture of ignorance," because we all are ignorant in some respects.
A Culture of Ignorance is a continuation to teach and indoctrinate children in things which have been completely discredited and refuted. Today in the US, it is most common in Christian Churches and in particular, in Christian Schools.
While this is not an indictment of ALL Christian Churches and ALL Christian Schools, there are many which would not fall into this category, it does say that most of the Schools of Ignorance today in the US are Christian sponsored and run.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-03-2007 11:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 192 of 221 (388126)
03-04-2007 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Straggler
03-03-2007 2:44 PM


Re: Is it religion?
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.
First of all, Newton was himself a Christian. In fact, his views on nature and religion mirror my own as I'm hesitant to ascribe too heavily to all natural or all supernatural explanations. So was Copernicus. So was Galileo. It sounds as if your beef is with highly organized religion that often looses sight of the big picture by becoming too rigid and too legalistic. If so, I couldn't agree more. But you can't simply erase history to suit an agenda that religion is the root cause of man's own atrocity. The singular factor between all of the misery in the world is man himself. This pervades culture, religious affiliations, belief systems, economic status, etc. It is man's own inner turmoil that is the cause of this all. If you are willing to pardon the religious expression, it is man's sin. I hope you would be willing to overlook that word because the concept of sin is understood even by the irreligious. I think you should recalculate your assessment.
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.
I think man's disposition is a complex one. Assigning only a few characteristics or reasons to it would be folly. Suppression, warring, devisiveness, duplicity, immorality, etc has always been with us. The only thing religion and politics do is give us a clear scapegoat for a much broader problem.
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.
How so? Especially when you have to consider all of the philanthropic efforts that have spawned from religion as well. Can we fairly only point out the bad things without recognizing the good as well?
1) 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?[/qs]
I agree with parts of each insomuch that it deals with a much larger disposition. This pervades all areas of humanity. My issue is that you seem to indict "religion" as the culprit when its really man's own heart and mind. Call that whatever you will, be it psychology, sociology, or whatever, but this certainly seems to be the case.

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Straggler, posted 03-03-2007 2:44 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2007 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 195 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-05-2007 9:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 193 of 221 (388325)
03-05-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 6:46 PM


Re: Is it religion?
First of all, Newton was himself a Christian.
So was Copernicus. So was Galileo.
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 think man's disposition is a complex one. Assigning only a few characteristics or reasons to it would be folly. Suppression, warring, devisiveness, duplicity, immorality, etc has always been with us. The only thing religion and politics do is give us a clear scapegoat for a much broader problem.
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.
Suppression, warring, devisiveness, duplicity, immorality, etc has always been with usI agree with parts of each insomuch that it deals with a much larger disposition. This pervades all areas of humanity. My issue is that you seem to indict "religion" as the culprit when its really man's own heart and mind. Call that whatever you will, be it psychology, sociology, or whatever, but this certainly seems to be the case.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 6:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by anastasia, posted 03-05-2007 9:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5952 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 194 of 221 (388388)
03-05-2007 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Straggler
03-05-2007 4:47 PM


Re: Is it religion?
Straggler writes:
Thus my conclusion that religion is the primary component in cultures of ignorance that have specifically put up barriers to scientific progress in particular.
This is probably true, since I don't have any examples coming to mind of other oppositions to science.
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.
We can really narrow the field today to two problem areas; Biblical inerrantism, and the issues surrounding human life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2007 4:47 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by Straggler, posted 03-06-2007 1:07 PM anastasia has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 195 of 221 (388398)
03-05-2007 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Hyroglyphx
03-04-2007 6:46 PM


Re: Is it religion?
First of all, Newton was himself a Christian. In fact, his views on nature and religion mirror my own ...
You're a Unitarian and an alchemist?
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message or continue in this vein.
Take comments to the Moderation Thread.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-04-2007 6:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024