Chilled Soda Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Is there a point where religion interferes with cultural and technological advances? Have we reached that point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Is there a point where religion interferes with cultural and technological advances? Have we reached that point? Erm...religion has already been holding back science since thousands of years ago... Thinking we are the centre of the universe anything else is heresy, earth is flat, god made us hence evolution is bs, no researching stem cells because fluids which have yet to become anything is more important that someone who is alive right now with family...etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knavesmith Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Religion is a belief system. You choose what morals, beliefs, lessons, and other ideas to believe in. You can choose what you wish to do and can express yourself however you choose to express yourself. Depending on how these beliefs and expressions work in your life, you can develop lessons that will teach others how the world works. You find truths based on stories, ideas, and lessons that are applied to the real and historic worlds to understand how they function and exist. Science is a method of investigation. You conduct experiments and tests to see how the world works. From these experiments you develop data, facts, and information. These data formulate theories that when are consistently replicated and undeniably true become fact and natural law. You find truths based on theories, experiments, and information that are derived from the real and historic worlds to understand how they function and exist. Religion and Science can be polar opposites, yet they can be practically synonymous. Religion takes ideas and applies them to the world to see how it works. Science takes information from the world to see how it works. When you attempt to compare these definitions, the two are completely opposite and will create conflicting truths. Religion experiments with the world by developing morals and lessons that work. Science chooses how the world works by choosing what beliefs may be true in the form of a hypothesis. By interchanging their definitions, the two function almost identically yet do not lose their original meaning. Comparing these definitions, the two are completely identical and will create synonymous truths. When you have subjects like Evolution vs. Creationism or Apocolyptic Endings, Science and Religion will lean to different answers. However, when you conduct social experiments or attempt to solve a moral problem, the variables in a scientific experiment and the beliefs in a religious committee may share the same process of elimination to determine the real truth or at least what functions best in the world. My rough draft of an unecessary essay does not properly answer the original question, I understand that, but I felt the need to express my view on Religion and Science. My definitions, understandings, and beliefs may or may not agree with your definitions, understandings, and beliefs, but do not dismiss my word because something in a forum post does not match your words. Read my word and continue to develop your understanding of how Religion and Science work. We are here to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Discovery Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Erm...religion has already been holding back science since thousands of years ago... ^ Although an atheist myself, I personally believe that other people have the freedom to have faith. There's no doubt that this "faith" has held back the advancements of mankind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoSir Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 One would think that religion would hold back science, in the same way a person would think a bad team mate would hold back a team. You could make the argument that religion provides guidance to people who otherwise may not be able to find it, enabling them to contribute to society which in turn, contributes to science. You could also argue that religious extremists hold back science, by attempting to remove research funding etc. I think it would be better to ask if we really want to be an entirely scientific oriented society to begin with. A lot of people i've seen in massive support of science treat it almost like a religion of logic, or what they would consider "the truth". I think its important to remember that while our science makes sense for us, we have only tested it in a tiny fraction of the universe, that our 'scientific laws' may or may not hold up millions of light years away from us in a galaxy with different variables. Thinking that we know a lot about science, much less anything at all in itself is a very ignorant belief. We treat science like a child treats basic geometry, assuming that because a^2+b^2=c^2 for a right triangle, it works for all triangles. A slightly off-topic hypothetical question to ask, if a being existed in our universe, omniscient and omnipresent of us, with the ability to do whatever it wanted to us if it wanted to, sort of the an ant to a boot, would you consider it a god? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TacoDip Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I usually go for the cultural victory, but science is pretty cool too... Only civ V kids will remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lo-Rez Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 faith is believing that matter creates consciousness, even though science can not explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Utsoob Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/ohboy.gif Mobile forums a shit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[Unactive Account] Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 I went to a public school and then to a chrisitan school halfway through the year. We used the same textbook for social studies but the christian school avoided the evolution section while the public school taught it. Religion is holding back on the sciences they beleive don't exist, such as evolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Noob Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Honestly I don't really see a reason to believe in any sort of faith, it serves no real purpose. Even though we don't know the scientific answer to every question, making up a bullshit answer is counterproductive and compromises the logic and rationality of everyone who believes it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted January 19, 2016 Share Posted January 19, 2016 Honestly I don't really see a reason to believe in any sort of faith, it serves no real purpose.well, studies have shown that, for instance, religious people are more happy then non-religious people. they also can handle anxiety better, and are also in better physical health. Perhaps ironically considering the source, but "The purpose of our lives is to be happy." - Dalai Lama (it's not all positive though as oppositely, for instance, non-religious people are more tolerant, intelligent & generous) Is there a point where religion interferes with cultural and technological advances? Have we reached that point?yes, but two notes on thisin the days of yor, people were more religious, but it were still men of the cloth that came up with, for instance, the theory of the big bang, and the theory of genetics (these people had time to study, instead of being 'productive' members of society & work the fields). in the europe of old, it was thanks to religion people knew a universal language (latin) to communicate. Like religion or don't like it - it's undeniable historic preeof it also did good things for science if one looks at book burnings, for instance there's not always a religious motive but also Politics (the Qin dynasty, Julius Ceasar burning the library of Alexandria, the nazi book burning, ...) "Religion vs Science, compared to other fields" seems much more interesting then "Religion vs Science" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lo-Rez Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 faith doesn't have to always be connected at the hipbone with religiosity. just sayin'. having faith in your family or friends, for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 well, studies have shown that, for instance, religious people are more happy then non-religious people. they also can handle anxiety better, and are also in better physical health. Perhaps ironically considering the source, but Think I've read that "study" (not sure if we are thinking of the same study) is somewhat bias as it isnt necessarily religion equals "happier" and there is a long list which can be a contributing factor to it. Those who attended religious gatherings were happier whilst those who didnt attend but are still religious showed similar results than those who were atheists which suggests it has more to do with socialising rather than religion itself, humans are very social creatures hence the positives listed in the study are similar to those of socialising. Tho you can argue that because religion removes an individual's sense of responsibility and places those responsibilities to a divine being that they can cope better than those who are not religious. Im not religious but I have been essentially been a large part of the Christian community for a majority of my life and you dont need to be a Christian/religious to attend gatherings and the alike to have an enjoyable time (though you do get the "nut cases" every now and then...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0night Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 well, studies have shown that, for instance, religious people are more happy then non-religious people. they also can handle anxiety better, and are also in better physical health. Perhaps ironically considering the source, but "The purpose of our lives is to be happy." - Dalai Lama (it's not all positive though as oppositely, for instance, non-religious people are more tolerant, intelligent & generous) yes, but two notes on this in the days of yor, people were more religious, but it were still men of the cloth that came up with, for instance, the theory of the big bang, and the theory of genetics (these people had time to study, instead of being 'productive' members of society & work the fields). in the europe of old, it was thanks to religion people knew a universal language (latin) to communicate.Like religion or don't like it - it's undeniable historic preeof it also did good things for science if one looks at book burnings, for instance there's not always a religious motive but also Politics (the Qin dynasty, Julius Ceasar burning the library of Alexandria, the nazi book burning, ...) "Religion vs Science, compared to other fields" seems much more interesting then "Religion vs Science" would love a source on latin being a universal language in europe cause that's absolutely not the case as far as i know as far as i am aware, for at least some time, congregations of people were read a sermon in latin, which was not a language they spoke in their everyday lives, nor one they would hear outside of church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0night Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 One would think that religion would hold back science, in the same way a person would think a bad team mate would hold back a team. You could make the argument that religion provides guidance to people who otherwise may not be able to find it, enabling them to contribute to society which in turn, contributes to science. You could also argue that religious extremists hold back science, by attempting to remove research funding etc. I think it would be better to ask if we really want to be an entirely scientific oriented society to begin with. A lot of people i've seen in massive support of science treat it almost like a religion of logic, or what they would consider "the truth". I think its important to remember that while our science makes sense for us, we have only tested it in a tiny fraction of the universe, that our 'scientific laws' may or may not hold up millions of light years away from us in a galaxy with different variables. Thinking that we know a lot about science, much less anything at all in itself is a very ignorant belief. We treat science like a child treats basic geometry, assuming that because a^2+b^2=c^2 for a right triangle, it works for all triangles. A slightly off-topic hypothetical question to ask, if a being existed in our universe, omniscient and omnipresent of us, with the ability to do whatever it wanted to us if it wanted to, sort of the an ant to a boot, would you consider it a god? glad to see someone challenging the utter credence and supremacy of scientific knowledge which is neither perfect nor stable nor even fundamentally achieving its own standards at times. this is okay, because it progresses and offers improved models all the time; but it is so frequently implied that we are on this teleological rise towards a utopia which will be achieved through science that you have to wonder at the similarities between religious models of progress towards oneness with God/Heaven/nirvana/whatever and science fanboyist daydreams of a utopian sci fi existence. also Clarke's 3rd (?) law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You could rewrite that as 'any sufficiently powerful force is indistinguishable from a god.' Honestly I don't really see a reason to believe in any sort of faith, it serves no real purpose. Even though we don't know the scientific answer to every question, making up a bullshit answer is counterproductive and compromises the logic and rationality of everyone who believes it. faith exists for much more than explaining that which science does not; even from a purely sociological perspective you can look at the ways in which it shapes general behaviours and thought. you seem to be limiting your perspective to an anachronistic backwards projection of present-day internet debate in which people support their faith with miracles/numinous experience/unexplained events or whatever and the vague theorisation that early humanity simply worshipped that which it did not comprehend. early religion seems to be more to do with trying to make sure you got a good harvest than worshipping the mysterious fire god or whatever (from what i remember of a book i read that touched on the matter.) Erm...religion has already been holding back science since thousands of years ago... Thinking we are the centre of the universe anything else is heresy, earth is flat, god made us hence evolution is bs, no researching stem cells because fluids which have yet to become anything is more important that someone who is alive right now with family...etc in certain instances scientific discovery has contradicted religious orthodoxy with the consequence that knowledge has been forestalled; however i disagree with the general imputation that religion itself is what holds these things back so much as the challenge to established power/political groups that certain discoveries or theories represent. sure, that power often has been at least superficially religious by its own definition but i don't know that it's necessary to blame religion as a concept for all of these specific instances. it's very possible to have moral objections to stem cell research/abortion without being religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Noob Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 glad to see someone challenging the utter credence and supremacy of scientific knowledge which is neither perfect nor stable nor even fundamentally achieving its own standards at times. this is okay, because it progresses and offers improved models all the time; but it is so frequently implied that we are on this teleological rise towards a utopia which will be achieved through science that you have to wonder at the similarities between religious models of progress towards oneness with God/Heaven/nirvana/whatever and science fanboyist daydreams of a utopian sci fi existence. also Clarke's 3rd (?) law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. You could rewrite that as 'any sufficiently powerful force is indistinguishable from a god.' faith exists for much more than explaining that which science does not; even from a purely sociological perspective you can look at the ways in which it shapes general behaviours and thought. you seem to be limiting your perspective to an anachronistic backwards projection of present-day internet debate in which people support their faith with miracles/numinous experience/unexplained events or whatever and the vague theorisation that early humanity simply worshipped that which it did not comprehend. early religion seems to be more to do with trying to make sure you got a good harvest than worshipping the mysterious fire god or whatever (from what i remember of a book i read that touched on the matter.) in certain instances scientific discovery has contradicted religious orthodoxy with the consequence that knowledge has been forestalled; however i disagree with the general imputation that religion itself is what holds these things back so much as the challenge to established power/political groups that certain discoveries or theories represent. sure, that power often has been at least superficially religious by its own definition but i don't know that it's necessary to blame religion as a concept for all of these specific instances. it's very possible to have moral objections to stem cell research/abortion without being religious. I'm still yet to see a reason why faith is good, it seems like you're just trying to remove some of the blame from it for holding back science. Whether justified or not, that still doesn't provide any reasons for why faith is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0night Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I'm still yet to see a reason why faith is good, it seems like you're just trying to remove some of the blame from it for holding back science. Whether justified or not, that still doesn't provide any reasons for why faith is a good thing. there's a point at which if you haven't got a shred of a clue how it might be a great thing for billions of people to bond over, learn through, enjoy, feel comforted by, inspired by, study and generally appreciate, then you probably won't get much out of what a guy on the internet tells you... like if you can't see the obvious communal/cultural/spiritual/psychological/literary/economic benefits people clearly feel it has for them then idk what to tell you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sniper Noob Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 there's a point at which if you haven't got a shred of a clue how it might be a great thing for billions of people to bond over, learn through, enjoy, feel comforted by, inspired by, study and generally appreciate, then you probably won't get much out of what a guy on the internet tells you... like if you can't see the obvious communal/cultural/spiritual/psychological/literary/economic benefits people clearly feel it has for them then idk what to tell you That's all sweet and dandy, but when it encourages people to suspend their reasoning, adopt worldviews that directly contradict things we know to be true, and compromise the future of our country or species, then it doesn't matter how warm it makes their hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0night Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 That's all sweet and dandy, but when it encourages people to suspend their reasoning, adopt worldviews that directly contradict things we know to be true, and compromise the future of our country or species, then it doesn't matter how warm it makes their hearts. most people are irrational in some way. religion is just an easy mark for tryhards to pick on. one could easily ask what the rationality is behind spending so much time ripping on religion when you could be developing as a person, or at least revaluing the importance of warming people's hearts. i don't see religion compromising the future of many countries. i see right wing politics taking care of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
!каблам Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I'm not saying this, just quoting someone, religion was made so that we would have some sort of answer to the unanswered questions I'm not athiest but I'm not full tryhard praise the lord kinda guy In my opinion even if jesus and such was real it's so long ago that he may have abandoned us by now or something like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Think I've read that "study" (not sure if we are thinking of the same study) is somewhat bias as it isnt necessarily religion equals "happier" and there is a long list which can be a contributing factor to it. And the same argument can be made for non-religious people being more generous. These are general conclusions based on demographics - not specific causasians. would love a source on latin being a universal language in europe cause that's absolutely not the case as far as i know Medieval Latin was the form of Latin used in the Middle Ages, primarily as a medium of scholarly exchange and as the liturgical language of Chalcedonian Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church, but also as a language of science, literature, law, and administration -- wikipedia in a nutshell, it enabled an italian scolar to send correspondance to a german scolar & brittish scolar & spanish scolar, without having to speak 4 languages, and speak them sufficiently not to lose anything in translation. ... much like I can explain this to you, whatever your native language is. congregations of people were read a sermon in latin, which was not a language they spoke in their everyday lives nods but scientist weren't "people" (meaning commoners). many, were clergy (partially or fully) or nobility - both didn't need to work for a living (or, more accurately, they had time to endulge their curiosity) edit: factoid: many commoners didn't even speak latin - they were unable to understand the sermon (or the (latin-only) bible for that matter) I'm still yet to see a reason why faith is good, it seems like you're just trying to remove some of the blame from it for holding back science. Whether justified or not, that still doesn't provide any reasons for why faith is a good thing. I would refrain from combining good with science. Science just 'is'. it's the thing that currently cures our diseases, but also burns a whole in the ozon lair. If you're in a mindset that science is good, anything that holds it back, is in the wrong. That's not only religion, but also culture, politics, etc ... And, if you're in a mindset that science is good, that boost it, would be good ... like WW2 (atom bomb) & the cold war (space race) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 And the same argument can be made for non-religious people being more generous. These are general conclusions based on demographics - not specific causasians. I would refrain from combining good with science. Science just 'is'. it's the thing that currently cures our diseases, but also burns a whole in the ozon lair. If you're in a mindset that science is good, anything that holds it back, is in the wrong. That's not only religion, but also culture, politics, etc ... And, if you're in a mindset that science is good, that boost it, would be good ... like WW2 (atom bomb) & the cold war (space race) I was simply pointing out the "study" you mentioned didn't doesnt have any proper testing/recognition in any shape if anything was borderline propaganda hence referencing it as if it was a proper research is kinda stupid... It depends on how you define science and it is essentially a field of study which is to observe, describe and explain the world around us though experimentation. How science is applied is an entirely different matter and it has lead to horrible things in the past and the same can be said for religion. in certain instances scientific discovery has contradicted religious orthodoxy with the consequence that knowledge has been forestalled; however i disagree with the general imputation that religion itself is what holds these things back so much as the challenge to established power/political groups that certain discoveries or theories represent. sure, that power often has been at least superficially religious by its own definition but i don't know that it's necessary to blame religion as a concept for all of these specific instances. it's very possible to have moral objections to stem cell research/abortion without being religious. Science in essence is the observation of the world though experimentation where as religion is the complete opposite which is to disregard reasoning to explain things though "imagination" so as far as holding back science religion has definitely done that. When taken by their bare definition they are polar opposites and will always continue to effect each other, one pushes for explanations which can be measured and seen where as the other pushes for explanations which cannot be measured nor seen...etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t0night Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Medieval Latin was the form of Latin used in the Middle Ages, primarily as a medium of scholarly exchange and as the liturgical language of Chalcedonian Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church, but also as a language of science, literature, law, and administration -- wikipedia in a nutshell, it enabled an italian scolar to send correspondance to a german scolar & brittish scolar & spanish scolar, without having to speak 4 languages, and speak them sufficiently not to lose anything in translation. ... much like I can explain this to you, whatever your native language is. nods but scientist weren't "people" (meaning commoners). many, were clergy (partially or fully) or nobility - both didn't need to work for a living (or, more accurately, they had time to endulge their curiosity) edit: factoid: many commoners didn't even speak latin - they were unable to understand the sermon (or the (latin-only) bible for that matter) a language is not universal just because it is spoken by scholars and priests of several countries when the vast majority of people in those countries do not have a usable grasp of that language, i was challenging your use of 'universal' as opposed to describing it as a lingua franca or similar, which it absolutely was. Science in essence is the observation of the world though experimentation where as religion is the complete opposite which is to disregard reasoning to explain things though "imagination" so as far as holding back science religion has definitely done that. When taken by their bare definition they are polar opposites and will always continue to effect each other, one pushes for explanations which can be measured and seen where as the other pushes for explanations which cannot be measured nor seen...etc religion is not definable as "a disregard of reasoning to explain things through imagination", i totally disagree. religion offers much more than that, it may or may not include attempts to describe the material world in more or less literal/figurative terms, but i certainly would not suggest that the primary purpose of religion is an attempt to achieve the same things as science but using a different, non-rational method, which is what you seem to be implying. honestly i would challenge the notion that religion has a primary purpose at all given the sheer philosophical, practical and historical heterogeneity of 'religion' as a concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperqube Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I was simply pointing out the "study" you mentioned didn't doesnt have any proper testing/recognition in any shape if anything was borderline propaganda hence referencing it as if it was a proper research is kinda stupid...... don't you mean the "study" YOU mentioned? Just because you saw a bad study which happened to have the same conclusion as the one I'm refering too, doesn't mean the one I'm refering too is a bad study... some quick google fu results in 5 studies that show correlation between religion & life satisfaction and happiness (Lim & Putnam, who in their turn refer to other studies, like Inglehart 2010, Greeley & Hout 2006, Ferriss 2002 & Hadaway 1978) (and seeing as Putman is a quite famous award winning professor, I don't really think one can just baselessly discard his results) Science in essence is the observation of the world though experimentation where as religion is the complete opposite which is to disregard reasoning to explain things though "imagination"you're confusing religion with belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♠Derpeh♤ Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 ... don't you mean the "study" YOU mentioned? Just because you saw a bad study which happened to have the same conclusion as the one I'm refering too, doesn't mean the one I'm refering too is a bad study... you're confusing religion with belief. The "study" I was referring to was one which went semi viral a year (?) ago which was why I stated that I wasnt sure if we were referring to the same one and assumed it was since you didnt correct me on your initial reply. Religion and belief go hand in hand except religion is referred to a community/group of people who share the same/similar beliefs so I dont see it as any different. Imo I feel that religion attempts to "fill in" what science cannot explain however it falls short because it fails to keep with the times but that is partly due to it's foundation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.