Religion correlation with poverty

[John Cuthber]

"This is simply false. Religion and Science are tools to explain two completely different aspects of human existence."

It would be fine if this were true, but nobody seems to have told the church about it.

Galileo may have remained a Catholic?

So what? that wasn't the issue.

The problem is that the church banned his teachings. Doing so held up progress.

 

If the Church stuck to the things that are not in the realm of science then it wouldn't have much to say would it?

It doesn't provide a moral guide (if it did, how come our nominally Christian society ignores quite a lot of it. We really don't stone kids to death for swearing at their parents as Leviticus tells us we should.)

It doesn't tell us about the origin of the universe- but it claims to.

On the other hand religion, or it's spokesmen (and they are generally men), tells us that we shouldn't believe the evidence of our eyes if it contradicts their magic book.

 

 

The fundamental distinction between religion and science is that science can admit to making mistakes.

Because of this it doesn't need to imprison people for their beliefs.

[swansont]

Galileo, it is argued, was silenced by religion... yet Galileo remained a devout Catholic his whole life. Gregor Mendel, Isaac Newton, and on and on were religious people.

 

Did they have much choice? Society didn't have much tolerance for deviation from this, and science at the time was viewed as gaining insight into God. As long as it didn't contradict dogma.

[jryan]

Did they have much choice? Society didn't have much tolerance for deviation from this, and science at the time was viewed as gaining insight into God. As long as it didn't contradict dogma.

 

 

That is also untrue. Thomas Hobbes, a famous philosopher and atheist, lived at the same time as Galileo and seemed to have a choice in his beliefs.

[iNow]

The scientific discoveries of Western civilization survived the dark ages due to dedicated monastic efforts to protect and maintain the records in the face of a destructive barbaric occupation.

This merely means that they were interested in the preservation of history, not in the advancement of science. They were scribes... or maybe historians at best, but not empiricists.

 

That is also untrue. Thomas Hobbes, a famous philosopher and atheist, lived at the same time as Galileo and seemed to have a choice in his beliefs.

You seem to have missed his point. Either that, you're being intentionally obtuse. The comment wasn't about anyone's choice in beliefs. They could believe anything they wanted, but they had to keep nonconformist beliefs quiet and hidden or else risk personal harm and rebuke.

 

He's also discussing how... yes... the church did often support their scientific efforts... SO LONG AS they did not contradict their dogma. However, as soon as the outputs of science suggested falsehoods in belief, faith, or scripture... It was repressed, it was attacked, and it was shunned... So much so that countless people were imprisoned, burned, and made to suffer merely for expressing honestly the evidence they'd discovered.

 

You're being very seriously disingenuous if you're here now suggesting such an environment was conducive to free thought, did not impede the flowing of ideas, and was a culture which supported progress and advancement.

[jryan]

"This is simply false. Religion and Science are tools to explain two completely different aspects of human existence."

It would be fine if this were true, but nobody seems to have told the church about it.

Galileo may have remained a Catholic?

So what? that wasn't the issue.

The problem is that the church banned his teachings. Doing so held up progress.

 

If the Church stuck to the things that are not in the realm of science then it wouldn't have much to say would it?

It doesn't provide a moral guide (if it did, how come our nominally Christian society ignores quite a lot of it. We really don't stone kids to death for swearing at their parents as Leviticus tells us we should.)

It doesn't tell us about the origin of the universe- but it claims to.

On the other hand religion, or it's spokesmen (and they are generally men), tells us that we shouldn't believe the evidence of our eyes if it contradicts their magic book.

 

 

The fundamental distinction between religion and science is that science can admit to making mistakes.

Because of this it doesn't need to imprison people for their beliefs.

 

 

 

 

This is also a wonderfully crafted fallacy of the history of Science and the Church. Even using Galileo as the example is completely illogical if you look beyond the blinders placed on history by many atheists.

 

Consider this: If Christianity was so terribly anti-science, and was the great burden on astronomy that atheists wish to paint it then why, pray tell, did the major strides in astronomy from that era come predominantly from Christian nations? Galileo's discoveries came a century into the Western dominance of the field, beginning with Copernicus in in 1540s. And before that, speaking more generally on the subject of religion as anti-science, Astronomy before Copernicus was dominated by Islamic Clerics in the three centuries before Copernicus.

 

China in that same period was largely a secular, philosophical society and they barely contributed to the furthering of astronomy. How do you explain this using the same "Christianity is anti-science" narrative?

[iNow]

How do you explain this using the same "Christianity is anti-science" narrative?

Even blind squirrels can sometimes find a nut.

[dimreepr]

Yes, I agree with your second sentence.

 

I disagree with your last sentence. I, and many other theists, do not care if a good idea challenges this magical hierarchy that you speak of. A good idea is a good idea, regardless of its origin or ramification on those who believe they are fit to lead.

 

 

Surely this depends on the moral attitude of the leader, I believe, from your reply that you have a good moral compass. Given that this is my opinion of what a good moral is. If the leader in question has a corrupt moral outlook then, I believe, he/she would use any method he/she could find to suppress any ideas that could challenge their leadership.

Edited January 5, 2012 by dimreepr

[jryan]

This merely means that they were interested in the preservation of history, not in the advancement of science. They were scribes... or maybe historians at best, but not empiricists.

 

 

You can't have it both ways. If the church were anti-science then they would have had no interest in preserving scientific discovery, much less furthering it.

 

 

You seem to have missed his point. Either that, you're being intentionally obtuse. The comment wasn't about anyone's choice in beliefs. They could believe anything they wanted, but they had to keep nonconformist beliefs quiet and hidden or else risk personal harm and rebuke.

 

 

No they didn't. We know about Hobbes and others because they were published and read. If we discovered Western atheist philosophers from unpublished hand scrawled notes tucked in a clay pots buried in the ruins of their hovel then you would have a point, but we don't. Leviathan has been in print uninterrupted for 360 years.

 

 

 

He's also discussing how... yes... the church did often support their scientific efforts... SO LONG AS they did not contradict their dogma. However, as soon as the outputs of science suggested falsehoods in belief, faith, or scripture... It was repressed, it was attacked, and it was shunned... So much so that countless people were imprisoned, burned, and made to suffer merely for expressing honestly the evidence they'd discovered.

 

 

Wrong. Galileo's example, again, belies that. Galileo's problems were not that his discoveries challenged scripture, but they challenges rather influential fellow astronomers. The church, as the state, was the tool used to silence Galileo's competing theory. But you don't need a religion in play to see that happening even today. The atheistic Soviet Union, especially up to the 1950s was about as backward a scientific culture as could be found. The state held beliefs in agriculture and medicine were completely false and dangerous (and proved quite deadly) but those who opposed these views were imprisoned and put to death.

 

It is hard to pin the plight of Galileo on religion when the same process plays out in the absence of religion.

 

 

You're being very seriously disingenuous if you're here now suggesting such an environment was conducive to free thought, did not impede the flowing of ideas, and was a culture which supported progress and advancement.

 

 

I am here to point out that if you believe that Christianity was a great hindrance on science, especially in the age of Galileo, then you really need to explain why Christian nations dominated the scientific fields in that time while more secular nations fell behind.

 

"Anti-Science Christianity" is simply a form of atheistic dogma that many atheists hold as a tenet of faith but refuse to examine openly. While it is certainly true that there are people who use religion as science and arrive erroneously at a 6000 year old Earth, there are just as many misguided individuals who arrive at the conclusion that religion is anti-science and claim to get their through "free thinking". For me the science and religion are completely separate, and only intertwine where morality and ethics are concerned.

 

It is arguable that pure science should be immoral (I used "amoral" before but that was wrong). The scientific strides we could make if we ignored personhood and bred humans solely for scientific experiments seems "rational" but immoral. But this belief in personhood and the sanctity of life also restricts scientific progress. This restriction, as one example, is not uniquely a religious limitation... at least I assume most atheists here would be opposed to such practices as well.

 

Even blind squirrels can sometimes find a nut.

 

 

That is rather absent rational introspection, iNow. It seems more fit for the imaginary anti-science Christian you hold in caricature than a free thinking atheist you believe yourself to be. There is 6 centuries of direct comparison between the three dominant cultures of the time and in direct comparison it is the secular culture that fell behind in science. Hell, it was the non-religious Huns and barbarians that nearly crushed Western civilization and froze scientific discovery in the west. The flame of discovery was kept lit by a dispersed organization of monasteries throughout Europe that not only "preserved history" as you so disingenuously put it, but promoted the furtherance of scientific study.

Edited January 5, 2012 by jryan

[Moontanman]

That is rather absent rational introspection, iNow. It seems more fit for the imaginary anti-science Christian you hold in caricature than a free thinking atheist you believe yourself to be. There is 6 centuries of direct comparison between the three dominant cultures of the time and in direct comparison it is the secular culture that fell behind in science.

 

Please name your claimed secular culture.

 

 

Hell, it was the non-religious Huns and barbarians that nearly crushed Western civilization and froze scientific discovery in the west.

 

Again please provide some substantiation that the huns and barbarians were non-religious.

 

 

The flame of discovery was kept lit by a dispersed organization of monasteries throughout Europe that not only "preserved history" as you so disingenuously put it, but promoted the furtherance of scientific study.

 

Please show some evidence they promoted the furtherance of scientific study....

Edited January 5, 2012 by Moontanman

[swansont]

That is also untrue. Thomas Hobbes, a famous philosopher and atheist, lived at the same time as Galileo and seemed to have a choice in his beliefs.

 

Atheism didn't have quite the same meaning ca 1600 as it did today, and it's not like his positions/actions were uncontroversial and without repercussion.

 

Leviathan has been in print uninterrupted for 360 years.

 

However,

 

"The only consequence that came of the bill was that Hobbes could never thereafter publish anything in England on subjects relating to human conduct. The 1668 edition of his works was printed in Amsterdam because he could not obtain the censor's licence for its publication in England. Other writings were not made public until after his death"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Opposition

 

Do you have to get permission to publish things in the more secular societies of today?

[dimreepr]

 

I am here to point out that if you believe that Christianity was a great hindrance on science, especially in the age of Galileo, then you really need to explain why Christian nations dominated the scientific fields in that time while more secular nations fell behind.

 

 

 

Islam has a reasonable claim to that status, at least enough so to invalidate this statement.

[jryan]

Islam has a reasonable claim to that status, at least enough so to invalidate this statement.

 

 

No, you would have a hard time arguing that any Islamic nation was not religious. Also, if that were true then you would still have to explain why Islamic scientific discovery in that time was dominated by Islamic clergy.

[dimreepr]

No, you would have a hard time arguing that any Islamic nation was not religious. Also, if that were true then you would still have to explain why Islamic scientific discovery in that time was dominated by Islamic clergy.

 

 

I didn't argue Islam is not religious just that it's scientific community was at least equal to that of Christianity.

 

Edited January 5, 2012 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

OK, so it's a stretch to think of this as "poverty" in the narrow sense, but let's remember that even now in the 21st c in the affluent West things like this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16427840

are still done in the name of religion.

[iNow]

If the church were anti-science then they would have had no interest in preserving scientific discovery, much less furthering it.

This does not follow. It's beyond me why you cannot comprehend that preservation of the past is not equivalent to supporting future progress, or that a small handful of scribes carrying forth past knowledge does not and cannot refute the point that the church as a whole was repressive of science which challenged its scripture or power.

 

 

No they didn't... <snip> Wrong... <snip> "Anti-Science Christianity" is simply a form of atheistic dogma... <snip> That is rather absent rational introspection, iNow. ... <snip> The flame of discovery was kept lit by a dispersed organization of monasteries throughout Europe...

 

There is so much wrong with your posts that I'm unsure where to begin. From thinking that advancements did not occur in China, to suggesting that scribes represented forward progress instead of loss mitigation, to saying that nonbelievers are executing on an ideology... you are quite simply wrong.

 

Let me summarize.

 

Totalitarian systems are inherently anti-scientific.

Religion is inherently a totalitarian system.

When viewed overall, religions net support for scientific progress over the centuries is mediocre when viewed relative to religions net impediment to scientific progress.

 

 

 

Islam has a reasonable claim to that status, at least enough so to invalidate this statement.

Since the original argument was that RELIGION gets in the way of progress, not just christianity, this point actually argues against the core premise.

[jryan]

I didn't argue Islam is not religious just that it's scientific community was at least equal to that of Christianity.

 

 

 

Ah, Ok. And yes, in terms of astronomy and mathematics the torch was passed from India, to China to the Middle East to Europe. After about 1500 the Islamic states fell behind as Europe began to dominate.

 

It's interesting in comparison because the spark for the Renaissance began in Turkey, but for various reasons the proceeding centuries saw Turkey's Renaissance never fully realized, and by later 1800s they were a rather brutal and insular culture.

 

This does not follow. It's beyond me why you cannot comprehend that preservation of the past is not equivalent to supporting future progress, or that a small handful of scribes carrying forth past knowledge does not and cannot refute the point that the church as a whole was repressive of science which challenged its scripture or power.

 

 

Your failure to comprehend the depth and function of dark age monasteries and their scholarship doesn't change the function of dark age monasteries and scholarship. Not only did the monasteries preserve the scientific works that preceded them, but they were busy retrieving, translating and adding to the discoveries of Greek and Roman achievements.

 

Furthermore, as the barbaric nations began to crumble in 1300s these same monasteries and their collected, and translated works and further discovery formed the institutional basis for the founding of the first European universities, and the scientific discovery was not only carried out by monks, but widely taught as well. The great scientists of the day learned their disciplines in these very same universities and form these very same texts, and there furtherance of understanding was protected by these very same religious institutions.

 

Your disregard for this monumental contribution to science and understanding of the function of the early church is an artifact of your own bias, not based on any actual facts.

 

 

 

 

There is so much wrong with your posts that I'm unsure where to begin. From thinking that advancements did not occur in China, to suggesting that scribes represented forward progress instead of loss mitigation, to saying that nonbelievers are executing on an ideology... you are quite simply wrong.

 

 

I didn't say that advancement didn't happen in China. I said that scientific discovery was dominated by the west, especially in the one discipline, astronomy, so often used as an example of Christianity holding back scientific discovery. But if you want to find a discipline in which China excelled in that era far beyond the West then by all means offer it up. Seamanship, mathematics, metallurgy, chemistry... none of these are dominated by Asian discovery, and certainly by the 1700s the gap between Western and Asian technology was tremendous.

 

 

Let me summarize.

 

Totalitarian systems are inherently anti-scientific.

Religion is inherently a totalitarian system.

When viewed overall, religions net support for scientific progress over the centuries is mediocre when viewed relative to religions net impediment to scientific progress.

 

 

Religion isn't inherently totalitarian, iNow. This simple bias is how you have managed to go so far wrong.

 

You can stare in the face of all of history filled at every turn with religion and religious institutions building the very fabric of scientific discovery and still feel you can invalidate it with an anecdote. That isn't "free thinking", iNow, it's confirmation bias.

 

 

 

Since the original argument was that RELIGION gets in the way of progress, not just Christianity, this point actually argues against the core premise.

 

No it doesn't. It is religious institutions that built the very educational systems on which the modern world was built. You are simply arguing the unprovable and illogical position that without religion it would have happened faster.. even while history shows that cultures that had no overarching religious government fared more poorly against the more religious cultures. Even today many of the oldest and most respected universities in the world are religious institutions or built by religious institutions.

 

History stands in denial of your assertions, iNow.

Edited January 5, 2012 by jryan

[A Tripolation]

Specious reasoning. Not everyone is Catholic. Brewers and distillers do well, too, but that doesn't mean there are no teetotalers.

 

...exactly. My point is that religion, nowadays, isn't the hamper on good ideas like it once was. Listening to the posts in this thread, it's almost as if these people genuinely believe that all theists denounce science and want to send us all back to the stone age.

 

Let me ask you this way, as this gets to the heart of what I was saying before all the dissembling. Which of these two things is more likely to repress good ideas, and which is more likely to explore, enhance, and share them for maximal benefit? Religion or science?

 

Of course the answer is science. I have never disputed this. I am disputing that religion is this regime that tries to destroy every good idea that it happens to come across.

 

Good ideas are allowed to prosper without being batted down by powerful clergy.

 

That is the specific thing that I am arguing. I tend towards the opinion that religion no longer behaves in this manner anymore.

 

 

 

I'm sorry you find that so deeply troubling that you've chosen to battle over it for three pages now. It's quite simply true.

 

 

Since when does your opinion equal fact?

[John Cuthber]

"Religion isn't inherently totalitarian,"

It offers you a choice; typically "believe or face eternal damnation and /or burning at the stake" whereas a totalitarian state like Stalinism offered a choice between "believe or get shot."

Obviously totally different.

 

"No it doesn't. It is religious institutions that built the very educational systems on which the modern world was built."

"Even today many of the oldest and most respected universities in the world are religious institutions or built by religious institutions."

 

This is a bit like saying that "cave men" built the original buildings so they are responsible for modern housing.

A lot has happened in between.

Certainly the original universities were places for the study of theology and the people there also learned other stuff, but none of this gets round the fact that religion wants things to stay the same, but science wants them to advance.

When I was a student my old and well respected University still taught theology- but not to very many people.

They became places of learning when they stopped studying one old book and looked at the rest of the world.

 

BTW, an Islamic proscription of representational art doesn't help text-book writers any.

[jryan]

 

That is the specific thing that I am arguing. I tend towards the opinion that religion no longer behaves in this manner anymore.

 

 

And more to the point, can anyone making that claim show where such behavior is unique or even more pronounced in religious regimes?

 

As I pointed out, there is evidence of this same anti-intellectualism throughout history regardless of whether or not there is a religion involved. I posit it is a weakness of human nature, not of religion. The most anti-science regimes of the last century were atheistic, but I wouldn't use it as an argument that atheism is anti-science, however. That is because such a conclusion on anecdotes is no better or less specious than the falsehoods perpetuated by atheists as they try and prove the moral superiority of atheism.

Edited January 5, 2012 by jryan

[Moontanman]

And more to the point, can anyone making that claim show where such behavior is unique or even more pronounced in religious regimes?

 

 

I can quite easily show that in the USA a large percentage of the religious are working to establish the US as a christian nation and to teach the bible as science.

 

 

As I pointed out, there is evidence of this same anti-intellectualism throughout history regardless of whether or not there is a religion involved. I posit it is a weakness of human nature, not of religion. The most anti-science regimes of the last century were atheistic, but I wouldn't use it as an argument that atheism is anti-science, however.

 

Care to point out a few of those atheistic anti-science regimes?

 

That is because such a conclusion on anecdotes is no better or less specious than the falsehoods perpetuated by atheists as they try and prove the moral superiority of atheism.

 

 

I've never heard an atheist say a unruly child should be stoned to death, or an adulterous woman, or that homosexuals should be killed

, do you really want to say that religion is morally superior? Superior to what?

[iNow]

Your disregard for this monumental contribution to science and understanding of the function of the early church is an artifact of your own bias, not based on any actual facts.

Except, I'm not disregarding it as a monumental contribution. I'm disregarding it as a valid counter argument to the point that powerful clergy tend to bat down ideas which run counter to their scripture and beliefs.

 

But if you want to find a discipline in which China excelled in that era far beyond the West then by all means offer it up.

Which era specifically?

 

Religion isn't inherently totalitarian, iNow. This simple bias is how you have managed to go so far wrong.

"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible." -wiki

 

 

Since the original argument was that RELIGION gets in the way of progress, not just Christianity, this point actually argues against the core premise.

No it doesn't.

Actually, it does. Read more closely. That comment was a concession that his point argued against MY position, not yours.

Edited January 5, 2012 by iNow

[jryan]

"Religion isn't inherently totalitarian,"

It offers you a choice; typically "believe or face eternal damnation and /or burning at the stake" whereas a totalitarian state like Stalinism offered a choice between "believe or get shot."

Obviously totally different.

 

Yes, very different. Especially if you don't believe in an afterlife.

 

"No it doesn't. It is religious institutions that built the very educational systems on which the modern world was built."

"Even today many of the oldest and most respected universities in the world are religious institutions or built by religious institutions."

 

This is a bit like saying that "cave men" built the original buildings so they are responsible for modern housing.

 

 

No, it's nothing like that. The point against which I am arguing is, however, like saying that Roman Cathedrals are not architecture because they were built by a religion.

 

 

A lot has happened in between.

 

 

Indeed it has, and you get a really screwy view of history when you skip over it.

 

 

 

Certainly the original universities were places for the study of theology and the people there also learned other stuff, but none of this gets round the fact that religion wants things to stay the same, but science wants them to advance.

 

 

Surely you need to actually educate yourself in the universities of the middle ages rather than speculate in a manner that best fits your personal bias.

 

And no, religion doesn't want things to "stay the same". That is simply absurd and ignores the very history you want to use as evidence. Again, the common anecdotal evidence is against the assertion as the propensity of humanity to resist change, especially powerful human organizations, is well documented regardless of how religious the organization is. As I said, science and religion are two separate pillars of intellectual devotion. One focuses on the how, the other on the why. All that atheists have managed to argue in their rejection of theism is that there is no why... which is as lacking in compelling thought as arguing that religion answers the how so the scientific debate is over.

 

 

 

When I was a student my old and well respected University still taught theology- but not to very many people.

They became places of learning when they stopped studying one old book and looked at the rest of the world.

 

 

I bet those theology students studied more than that "one old book". In fact, I would argue that on your myopic interpretation of theological study that your education is better defined as "avoiding old books".

 

 

BTW, an Islamic proscription of representational art doesn't help text-book writers any.

 

Nope, nor does political correctness.

[Moontanman]

That is the specific thing that I am arguing. I tend towards the opinion that religion no longer behaves in this manner anymore.

 

 

Seriously dude, you should live where I do for a while and see the constant turmoil of school boards trying to teach creationism as science.... or teachers refusing to teach evolution... or asshats knocking on your door every Saturday afternoon wanting to tell you why the bible it literally true and that homosexuals are possessed by demons and you are going to burn in hell... the MBE goes on forever.... they get torqued completely out of shape over a bill board that suggests that if you don't believe in god you have company but there must be hundreds of bill boards claiming everyone is going to burn in hell if you don't believe my version of a damn fairy tail..... They get pissed off and claim they are being assaulted in some way if I answer merry christmas with happy holidays, I seriously expect to see religious violence in my life time started by these stupid fundamentalists.... And yes there are lots of them and more moderate religious people are afraid to stand up and be counted because they know they will be persecuted as though they are atheists and oh yeah, you don't want to admit to being one of those immoral father rapers for sure... I am sorry A Tripolation but we live in different worlds no doubt....

[swansont]

...exactly. My point is that religion, nowadays, isn't the hamper on good ideas like it once was.

 

Then we agree, because my point was that it has been.

[jryan]

Except, I'm not disregarding it as a monumental contribution. I'm disregarding it as a valid counter argument to the point that powerful clergy tend to bat down ideas which run counter to their scripture and beliefs.

 

But, again, you have no evidence of this as systematic, or unique to "powerful clergy". You have failed to show any reason for leveling this particular accusation against religion specifically rather than against humanity in general.

 

 

Which era specifically?

 

 

Let's pick the last 2000 years. I will give you a wide birth for showing Chinese excellence in a scientific discipline that was held back by religion in other cultures.

 

 

"Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a political system where the state recognizes no limits to its authority and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life wherever feasible." -wiki

 

Actually, it does. Read more closely. That comment was a concession that his point argued against MY position, not yours.

 

 

And religion isn't inherently totalitarian by that definition. Threatening a person with eternal hellfire doesn't carry much weight with those who don't believe in Hell. Now show me where any religious government is exceptionally more totalitarian than any communist nation of the last 100 years. Your argument fails to differentiate your anecdotes from an entire human history of contrary evidence or even address the anecdotes as evidence beyond the most superficial examination of them. You limit your evidence for no other reason than the evidence you are willing to accept supports your premise.

 

At worst you could probably argue successfully from history that religion isn't particularly good at overcoming human nature, but that is a lot different than arguing religion as the cause of any given observed human frailty. But you choose to do just that anyway.

Edited January 5, 2012 by jryan