Who created science? The Church or the State?

[Greatest I am]

Did religions create science to further their Gods?

Did the State create it to further their Gods?

 

 

 

After a bit of research on how religions began and knowing that what were relatively small temples in the beginning, almost what we would call house churches today, I wondered how and why they became popular or won converts.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2h4KueeElo

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMXHL...eature=related

 

Add these prophets and God’s to the Gnostic mystery schools and you get an idea of all the competition. Was it just between magicians and scientists with a bit of theology thrown in?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnvEHObMMH4

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_meC...eature=related

 

Science would have been the tool to fool people into thinking that magic was being done. Everything from fire walking to levitation and mysteriously crying and moving statues.

 

God then would have been man made even as Gnostics of various religions were pushing for a God within as opposed to the God without pushed by the Churches who were more interested in locking in their converts to their thinking and that their hierarchy were required as the pathway to God.

Gnostics on the other hand said that all had a direct path to God and that Churches and priests were not necessary. Could they have been the true shaman of that day?

 

Gnostics believed more as Joseph Campbell did and pushed for personal growth an apotheosis by confronting God and mastering of ones self.

 

 

Add that to this. Wait till minute 5 + for the good stuff on myths and ignore the fear mongering of the LHC. It just happens that I could not find this work on it’s own.

 

 

 

These show just how religions began and how they differed from the religious beliefs we hold today.

 

It was all myths from mostly plagiarized Egyptian sources.

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x84...st-1-of-3_news

 

 

If I am lucky, after viewing all of this information, you will conclude as I do that---

 

Religions, other than the Gnostic based ones are pure myth.

 

That religions may have been the first to push science forward to help perpetuate it’s myths, through magic.

 

That the state likely took over this science to further it’s war efforts.

 

That Gnosticism, defined as basically the questioning of all beliefs, can lead to apotheosis or a rapprochement to the Godhead via knowledge and that this is the only way to truly have that personal relationship to God that all religionists seek.

It just happens to not be the mythical Bible God.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Regards

DL

[TonyMcC]

I would say science has always been there, even before church or government. The first primitive human who threw a stone at a an animal to get food and found he had to throw it at a steeper angle the further the target was away from him was applying science.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Just want to post a note of caution here that this is posted in the science education section, and NOT the religion section. Please post accordingly. We are NOT discussing validity of any particular religious viewpoint

[Greatest I am]

I would say science has always been there, even before church or government. The first primitive human who threw a stone at a an animal to get food and found he had to throw it at a steeper angle the further the target was away from him was applying science.

 

I agree. I just wonder if he became the political chief or the religious shaman.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

Just want to post a note of caution here that this is posted in the science education section, and NOT the religion section. Please post accordingly. We are NOT discussing validity of any particular religious viewpoint

 

I agree. That is why I did not name any religion.

 

P S. I would have posted in your religious section but am not allowed to at present.

If you would like to move it there, by all means do.

 

 

Regards

DL

Edited January 18, 2011 by Greatest I am

[lemur]

The origins of science you find depend on what aspect of science you're trying to trace or seek precedent for. Enlightenment scientists like Galileo do seem to have been part of the same ideological movement as the protestant reformers of the time, like Martin Luther, in that they were not interested in submitting to authoritarian governance of their studies of nature, interpretations of scripture, theorizing/philosophizing, etc. The anti-religious character of the enlightenment/renaissance was, however, more of a crusade against authoritarian control and dogma than it was a rejection of theology. Protestant reformers were disenchanted by "false idolatry" and other corruption they saw in their churches and they sought reform with reference to higher ideals prescribed by Christianity, such as putting authority of truth ABOVE worldly authority (and they saw the church administration as worldly and thus sought a more direct connection with divinity).

 

The state, on the other hand, evolved from a long history of authoritarian institutionality. Statists have been influenced by theology and ethics, and they are interested in utilizing science for social-economic purposes, but I don't see the state as having developed the same level of anti-authoritarianism that science did, except to the extent that advocates of republic and self-governance by reason promoted freedom/independence. Actually, I shouldn't accuse statism as having a monopoly on authoritarianism because a lot of science has been appropriated for social control purposes as well. Personally, I see science as a spirit of critique toward existing knowledge in favor of questioning, testing, falsification, etc. but some see it as the process of refining established knowledge for the purpose of establishing truer dogmas to adhere to. Obviously, religion seeks to do the same thing but I see that as a radical digression from the original ideologies of Christ, which promote questioning of religious dogma and direct revelation through (holy) spirit; not uncritical adherence to church doctrine.

[swansont]

I agree. I just wonder if he became the political chief or the religious shaman.

 

I'm guessing that it would have to do with whether the observation (or application of it) was treated as a natural or supernatural phenomenon. History points to numerous examples of The Church attempting to suppress or discredit science when it went against canon. (Happens in business, too, but that's not one of the options in the title)

[John Cuthber]

I agree. I just wonder if he became the political chief or the religious shaman.

 

 

Regards

DL

 

I doubt that, at the time, there was any difference.

[MR. Science]

Well GOD created Science, not the church or the state, science is the understanding and process of how things work or how to make things work, which is what God is all about, remember men cannot create, only make, we still have yet to make anything with life in it,

 

 

Dont believe anything else, science is a truly divine concept.

Edited January 18, 2011 by MR. Science

[ydoaPs]

Well GOD created Science

No, she didn't.

[Greatest I am]

The origins of science you find depend on what aspect of science you're trying to trace or seek precedent for. Enlightenment scientists like Galileo do seem to have been part of the same ideological movement as the protestant reformers of the time, like Martin Luther, in that they were not interested in submitting to authoritarian governance of their studies of nature, interpretations of scripture, theorizing/philosophizing, etc. The anti-religious character of the enlightenment/renaissance was, however, more of a crusade against authoritarian control and dogma than it was a rejection of theology. Protestant reformers were disenchanted by "false idolatry" and other corruption they saw in their churches and they sought reform with reference to higher ideals prescribed by Christianity, such as putting authority of truth ABOVE worldly authority (and they saw the church administration as worldly and thus sought a more direct connection with divinity).

 

The state, on the other hand, evolved from a long history of authoritarian institutionality. Statists have been influenced by theology and ethics, and they are interested in utilizing science for social-economic purposes, but I don't see the state as having developed the same level of anti-authoritarianism that science did, except to the extent that advocates of republic and self-governance by reason promoted freedom/independence. Actually, I shouldn't accuse statism as having a monopoly on authoritarianism because a lot of science has been appropriated for social control purposes as well. Personally, I see science as a spirit of critique toward existing knowledge in favor of questioning, testing, falsification, etc. but some see it as the process of refining established knowledge for the purpose of establishing truer dogmas to adhere to. Obviously, religion seeks to do the same thing but I see that as a radical digression from the original ideologies of Christ, which promote questioning of religious dogma and direct revelation through (holy) spirit; not uncritical adherence to church doctrine.

 

I agree that Jesus was more Gnostic than what the Church eventually became thanks to the greed of men. Constantine's killing and book burning made sure of that.

Christianity became quite good at creating dependence on it instead of God for salvation. At a price of course.

 

You went further up in history than what I was thinking of for the creation of science.

I was back in the early bronze age and further where man had worked for quite a while already with engeneering of wooden tools by then.

 

I attributed science more to religions because of the so called magic that they worked to grow their religions.

 

Regards

DL

 

I'm guessing that it would have to do with whether the observation (or application of it) was treated as a natural or supernatural phenomenon. History points to numerous examples of The Church attempting to suppress or discredit science when it went against canon. (Happens in business, too, but that's not one of the options in the title)

 

Business I usually place in the political sphere but in a sense religion is all about business as well. Both are in the make work field.

 

 

 

 

 

Well GOD created Science, not the church or the state, science is the understanding and process of how things work or how to make things work, which is what God is all about, remember men cannot create, only make, we still have yet to make anything with life in it,

 

 

Dont believe anything else, science is a truly divine concept.

 

I like science but I do not give anything any divinity.

 

Nothing is divine that has not been named so by man.

 

After all, God does not have a tongue to speak with.

 

Our first God was a man and our last shall be as well.

We will just have to change the definition back to what it was in the begining.

[lemur]

I like science but I do not give anything any divinity.

 

Nothing is divine that has not been named so by man.

 

After all, God does not have a tongue to speak with.

 

Our first God was a man and our last shall be as well.

We will just have to change the definition back to what it was in the begining.

What happens when you accept that God has only ever existed as a human construction/projection? Do you then reject all theology as being based on a projection or do you embrace God as human culture of (faith in) divinity?

[Greatest I am]

What happens when you accept that God has only ever existed as a human construction/projection? Do you then reject all theology as being based on a projection or do you embrace God as human culture of (faith in) divinity?

 

I left a rather detailed answer to my beliefs in the intro site but let me just say that I do not quite believe in God the human construct that most believe in. The God we know, yes, is a pure human construct. The Godhead I believe in is somewhat different. It is a cosmic consciousness and not divine. Just natural.

 

I will not throw this O P off track and not knowing if the mods here want pure religion discussions in any place other than the religion forum, they have already spoken of religion here above, and I do not want to have them peeved.

 

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51253-the-official-introduce-yourself-thread/page__st__1940

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Moontanman]

I think the supernatural was mans first attempt to explain the natural world, it was totally unsuccessful, but it took a long time for humans to realize that there was no supernatural and actual observation and tests were the only way to know the natural world.

[lemur]

I left a rather detailed answer to my beliefs in the intro site but let me just say that I do not quite believe in God the human construct that most believe in. The God we know, yes, is a pure human construct. The Godhead I believe in is somewhat different. It is a cosmic consciousness and not divine. Just natural.

 

I will not throw this O P off track and not knowing if the mods here want pure religion discussions in any place other than the religion forum, they have already spoken of religion here above, and I do not want to have them peeved.

I think the reason you don't want to discuss your personal God(head) is not because you don't want to hijack the thread but because you don't want to view your beliefs in the same light as all other humanly constructed divinity. By using words like "cosmic consciousness" and "not divine, just natural," you are just re-constituting divinity as its empirical basis (i.e. nature) and you are acting as if divinity itself means anything more or less than "cosmic consciousness." All these concepts are human constructs used to transcend the banality of the particular. All divinity is is projecting human knowledge onto some entity imagined to transcend embodied human existence.

[MR. Science]

A lot of God haters in this thread, sad sad sad.

[mississippichem]

A lot of God haters in this thread, sad sad sad.

 

You're not doing much to help your cause by calling atheists sad god haters.

[Greatest I am]

I think the supernatural was mans first attempt to explain the natural world, it was totally unsuccessful, but it took a long time for humans to realize that there was no supernatural and actual observation and tests were the only way to know the natural world.

 

The majority do not as yet agree with you that there is no supernatural.

 

That would include most religious and quantum physicists. Not all the quantum physicists mind you.

 

Regards

DL

 

I think the reason you don't want to discuss your personal God(head) is not because you don't want to hijack the thread but because you don't want to view your beliefs in the same light as all other humanly constructed divinity. By using words like "cosmic consciousness" and "not divine, just natural," you are just re-constituting divinity as its empirical basis (i.e. nature) and you are acting as if divinity itself means anything more or less than "cosmic consciousness." All these concepts are human constructs used to transcend the banality of the particular. All divinity is is projecting human knowledge onto some entity imagined to transcend embodied human existence.

 

You think wrong and I will be happy to discuss it over there.

 

Regards

DL

[swansont]

The majority do not as yet agree with you that there is no supernatural.

 

Truth about nature is not a democracy. It doesn't matter what the majority believes, it's what they can demonstrate.

[Greatest I am]

A lot of God haters in this thread, sad sad sad.

 

I do not think it is possible to hate what you do not believe in but after all, this is a science forum, The majority of science minded people wil reject the possibility of a God. Who can blame them. Theists have done a piss poor sales job and have been fighting amoung themselves for 2000 years while bringing tons of wars and other damage to society.

 

I am a converted atheist only because of my apotheosis and frankly, I probably hate literalists and fundamentals more than atheists do.

 

Regards

DL

 

Truth about nature is not a democracy. It doesn't matter what the majority believes, it's what they can demonstrate.

 

It is getting to that I hope.

In the past though, it was all about the numbers and the power they yeilded.

It still is in unfortunate locations. Even where you would not expect it. The West. Check how womwn and gays are discriminated and denigrated without just cause.

In a civilized world, that would be a hate crime.

Let us pray, so to speak, that that changes quickly.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/55694664@N03/5355658072/sizes/m/in/photostream/

 

 

Edited January 21, 2011 by Greatest I am

[Paradox of Vigor]

Before the church or the state, humans created science.

[lemur]

Before the church or the state, humans created science.

So what? Humans create institutions and then regard them as if they existed externally to human power. That's even more general a statement than yours. You shouldn't make general statement with vague unspoken implications. You should explicate your argument by stating clearly your reasons for saying what you say.

[LabRaticus]

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testableexplanations and predictions about the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)

 

Using this definition man created science. But the universe, which is the totality of everything and all that is studied by science was created long before the existence of man on earth. We still have no idea how that began.

[swansont]

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testableexplanations and predictions about the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science)

 

Using this definition man created science. But the universe, which is the totality of everything and all that is studied by science was created long before the existence of man on earth. We still have no idea how that began.

 

That science is a creation of man wasn't at issue, AFAICT.

[John Cuthber]

That science is a creation of man wasn't at issue, AFAICT.

 

It wasn't until Mr Science said "Well GOD created Science, not the church or the state".

 

I still think that, at the time when science was invented, there was no real distinction between the church and the state.

[rktpro]

God created the earth and the humans. It were humans who created science. Science actually is a way of understanding what God has done for us. Understanding everything in the whole universe.