An anthropologist's view of religion:

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you don't think killing goes on in the name of the 'lord'? You are really naive.

are you an atheist?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I wonder if you dullards can read through your blinkers. The article cites religion as an example of the power of imagination: "Religious-like phenomena in general are an inseparable part of a key adaptation unique to modern humans, and this is the capacity to imagine other worlds, an adaptation that I argue is the very foundation of the sociality of modern human society."

Blink, blink.

To get away from imaginary worlds and into somerhing concrete and useful, religion has done much to improve civilization, having given rise to colleges and universities and hospitals. It was a monk after all who gave us the basis for the syudy modern genetics. Only a fool would claim that religion has always been a good thing--but only a fool would blame God for man's fallabilities.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
To get away from imaginary worlds and into somerhing concrete and useful, religion has done much to improve civilization, having given rise to colleges and universities and hospitals. It was a monk after all who gave us the basis for the syudy modern genetics. Only a fool would claim that religion has always been a good thing--but only a fool would blame God for man's fallabilities.

As a generalisation, that isn't bad. Indubitably, Western science would be inconceivable without the Catholic Church -- a paradox that may stick in the craw of the fundamental scientoid, but there it is. But you'd have to view the Church as (part of) a cultural matrix in which stuff happens; all kinds of stuff that tends to run all over the place, in ways the people who generate the stuff can't foresee and frequently deplore.

Before some idiot drags in Galileo (give an old guy a break) -- the Church only proscribed his works in response to the Reformation; had Luther not gone moggy in his spectacular way, it's unlikely that he'd have incurred the sanctions he did. And -- to throw in another paradox -- the Church (well, specifically Alexander Borgia), by authorising the sale of indulgences, largely underwrote the Renaissance -- its art, science, architecture. Had the Pope been a life-denying humourless patriarchal philistine instead, there's have been no fuel for a Reformation ... So, by sponsoring art (etc), the Borgia Pope helped create the conditions for the hardening of Church attitudes (the Counter-Reformation), which gave rise to the 'anti-science' libel that the Church has been stuck with ever since.

Originally posted by sonhouse
So you don't think killing goes on in the name of the 'lord'? You are really naive.

No, I never said that killing in the name of the 'lord' does not happen. I said that it is not as common as you appear to be claiming and that most of the cases that you are probably thinking of are not what you think they are. I suppose that if I am naive then I wouldn't know it so I can hardly answer that question. But if you think I am naive then why don't you enlighten me. Give me one example you know of where someone killed someone else because their 'lord' told them too.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
To get away from imaginary worlds and into somerhing concrete and useful, religion has done much to improve civilization, having given rise to colleges and universities and hospitals. It was a monk after all who gave us the basis for the syudy modern genetics. Only a fool would claim that religion has always been a good thing--but only a fool would blame God for man's fallabilities.

I do not deny that various religious organizations have been responsible for improving civilization. I do deny however that there is any good evidence that the same would not have happened without religion. There is also a lot of evidence that in many cases religion has deliberately tried to stop progress.
In a religious society it is only natural for the more intelligent and scientific type people to end up in the religious hierarchy and thus promote science from there. Also anyone who wishes to help others via donations or hospitals etc tend to do it through the religions organizational structure. However, unless you can find some atheist societies to compare it with you can hardly show that the same would not happen without religion.
I suspect that many colleges, universities and hospitals have been started by atheists, so unless you can prove me wrong there is no reason to believe that religion is responsible for the ones started by religions but rather the people involved.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I do not deny that various religious organizations have been responsible for improving civilization. I do deny however that there is any good evidence that the same would not have happened without religion.

But this reasoning strikes me as specious. In the specific context of Western science, a religious institution played a vital role. No doubt you could write a convincing alternative history novel to write the story differently, but you'd still be indulging in fiction.

It's more interesting to me to examine how a believer can come up with an idea that attains a life of its own and thwarts the purposes of its inventor. For example, Luther's Reformation was intended to return society to the fundamentals of the religious life (a bit like the Taliban); yet, ultimately, in practice, it had precisely the opposite effect, paving the way for scientific materialism. Hence, science owes dogmatic religion a debt.

These paradoxes are inescapable.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
But this reasoning strikes me as specious. In the specific context of Western science, a religious institution played a vital role. No doubt you could write a convincing alternative history novel to write the story differently, but you'd still be indulging in fiction.

In what way is it specious? I am arguing that there is no reason to believe that religion is, or was, necessary for scientific advancement. The fact that religion held sway over Europe during the middle ages proves nothing. Most of the people involved were white. Does that mean that if everyone in the world had black skin then we would not have got where we are today?
I am arguing that universities, hospitals etc were built by people and would have been built whether or not religion existed and further that religion in fact tends to hold back science not encourage it and that much intellectual capacity is wasted on a delusion. If the monk mentioned earlier did not have to attend prayers and study the Bible he might have got much further than he did.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In what way is it specious? I am arguing that there is no reason to believe that religion is, or was, necessary for scientific advancement. The fact that religion held sway over Europe during the middle ages proves nothing. Most of the people involved were white. Does that mean that if everyone in the world had black skin then we would not have got where ...[text shortened]... r did not have to attend prayers and study the Bible he might have got much further than he did.

You can't argue past conditionals. If I had been born in Shanghai, my life would have turned out different -- but the fact is that I wasn't, so the best thing I can do with my idle speculations is turn them into fiction. If ... had ... might ...

I don't maintain that science must grow out of religion; only that, as a matter of historical fact, it has. I'd be inclined to see evidence of a certain cultural growth pattern there.

Rather than acknowledging the paradoxes I've highlighted, you seem to be inclined to wish them away.

I'd expect you to provide some examples in support of your argument. It's in human nature to care for people and examine things, so you should find it easy to show instances of universities and hospitals produced without any religious considerations.

I think Mendel, the 'father of modern genetics' did all right despite all the praying and Bible reading he was forced to do. At least, his model of inheritance is now accepted, whereas pangenesis, used by Darwin in his theory of evolution, is not., .

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You can't argue past conditionals. If I had been born in Shanghai, my life would have turned out different -- but the fact is that I wasn't, so the best thing I can do with my idle speculations is turn them into fiction. If ... had ... might ...

And I wasn't arguing past conditionals. But you cant take historical examples as proof of a generality either. I made it clear that I did not dispute the historical facts but I do dispute that religion was the historical reason for the development of science. The fact that someone is religious is not a good reason for attributing all his actions to religion.

I don't maintain that science must grow out of religion; only that, as a matter of historical fact, it has.
But it is not an undisputed historical fact. The historical fact is that a religious organization was partly responsible. As I pointed out, you might as well claim that it is a historical fact that science grew out of white skin color.

Rather than acknowledging the paradoxes I've highlighted, you seem to be inclined to wish them away.
I hereby acknowledge the paradoxes.

I'd expect you to provide some examples in support of your argument. It's in human nature to care for people and examine things, so you should find it easy to show instances of universities and hospitals produced without any religious considerations.
Not easy to do in a world which is mostly religious. However I doubt that any government sponsored universities or hospitals (which most are today) can rightly be attributed to 'religious considerations'.

I think Mendel, the 'father of modern genetics' did all right despite all the praying and Bible reading he was forced to do. At least, his model of inheritance is now accepted, whereas pangenesis, used by Darwin in his theory of evolution, is not., .
I agree. But that in no way shows that the fact that he was a monk had any benefit or that religion can be given the credit for his discoveries.
It can probably also be shown that Darwin spent more time trying to deal with religious resistance than he did actually doing good science.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You can't argue past conditionals. If I had been born in Shanghai, my life would have turned out different -- but the fact is that I wasn't, so the best thing I can do with my idle speculations is turn them into fiction. If ... had ... might ...

I don't maintain that science must grow out of religion; only that, as a matter of historical fact, it h now accepted, whereas pangenesis, used by Darwin in his theory of evolution, is not., .

And this evilization of Darwin is alright? What about Galileo? He was under house arrest for years for daring to suggest the earth wasn't the center of the universe and some people even refused to look through his telescope so they wouldn't upset their predigested views, much like today's ID'ers and creationists. He discovered binary stars and people looking through the telescope would go 'there has to be a flaw in the optics', even though that was the only double star in view.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I wasn't arguing past conditionals. But you cant take historical examples as proof of a generality either. I made it clear that I did not dispute the historical facts but I do dispute that religion was the historical reason for the development of science. The fact that someone is religious is not a good reason for attributing all his actions to religi time trying to deal with religious resistance than he did actually doing good science.

If you weren't arguing past conditionals, what were you doing?

I didn't say 'religion caused science'. That's like saying 'mother caused me to exist'. Not true. Both science and religion are labels for a complex aggregate of human activities. I said, Western science grew out of, and outgrew, the cultural matrix provided by religion. Unless you contend that science just appeared out of nowhere.

The 'white skin colour' argument is junk. A religious organisation has agency (so to speak); skin doesn't. A religious organisation can get stuff done; skin doesn't do anything except regulate itself. It's comparing bricks with fruitcake.

I'd say that going from theology to science is a natural progression. Somebody keenly interested in acquiring knowledge of God would seek to unveil Nature; somebody like Newton:

'In his The Religion of Isaac Newton (Oxford 1974), F.E. Manuel concluded: "The more Newton's theological and alchemical, chronological and mythological work is examined as a whole corpus, set by the side of his science, the more apparent it becomes that in his moments of grandeur he saw himself as the last of the interpreters of God's will in actions, living on the fulfillment of times." '

And Newton was wrong about a lot of things. But his religious inspiration is beyond doubt. Hence, if modern science is historically indebted to Newton, so is it to his religion.

But it's not that big a deal. What difference does it make now?

Originally posted by sonhouse
And this evilization of Darwin is alright? What about Galileo? He was under house arrest for years for daring to suggest the earth wasn't the center of the universe and some people even refused to look through his telescope so they wouldn't upset their predigested views, much like today's ID'ers and creationists. He discovered binary stars and people lookin ...[text shortened]... 'there has to be a flaw in the optics', even though that was the only double star in view.

I don't recall mentioning Darwin's 'evilization'.

I've anticipated your knee-jerk 'Galileo response'. His house arrest (ooh, how dreadful) can be
laid at the door of Luther! Prior to the Reformation, the Church wasn't quite as scary (to scientists, I hasten to add!). That's why Copernicus took so long to make it onto the register of banned books. But to comprehend that, you'd have to develop a nuanced historical perspective, which doesn't seem like happening anytime soon, if the web sites you cite are anything to judge from.

Scientists are as likely to suffer from dogmatic views as much as anyone. Because, you see -- to spell it out -- the blinkers are not a product of religion, but human nature.

Can't you see, sonhouse (I say with tears in my eyes) that your monomaniacal ranting is the mirror image of that which you deplore? It's tragic.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I said, Western science grew out of, and outgrew, the cultural matrix provided by religion. Unless you contend that science just appeared out of nowhere.

I might be contending that religion is only a component of the 'cultural matrix' and not necessarily the primary one.

The 'white skin colour' argument is junk. A religious organisation has agency (so to speak); skin doesn't. A religious organisation can get stuff done; skin doesn't do anything except regulate itself. It's comparing bricks with fruitcake.
And an organization can do stuff whether it is religious or not. It is the people in the organization and not the religion that gets things done.

I'd say that going from theology to science is a natural progression. Somebody keenly interested in acquiring knowledge of God would seek to unveil Nature; somebody like Newton:
I would say that somebody keenly interested in acquiring knowledge is often drawn to trying to acquire knowledge of God. I doubt that religion brought Newton to science. It is far more likely that it distracted him as it has distracted all great scientists.
If I look up Isaac Newton on Wikipedia, I see that he excelled a school from an early age and there is no mention of him starting out in the Church then moving to science. In fact the Wikipedia article takes the opposite course, showing that he started out in science and only later moved on to religion. It also says "In his own lifetime, Newton wrote more on religion than he did on natural science." If he wasn't religious then maybe he would have doubled his science output.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What difference does it make now?

If we give credit to religion where it is not due then it gives one more crutch for theists who are deluded by the Pascals Wager syndrome. Almost all theists I have talked to use Pascals Wager as a crutch at some point. Their justification is partly founded on the false belief that religion as a whole is beneficial to society and that there is no loss to them by being religious even if they are wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I might be contending that religion is only a component of the 'cultural matrix' and not necessarily the primary one.

At the point in history we seem to be discussing (the late Middle Ages to Renaissance) the Christian religion was clearly the cultural dominant. All other cultural products were secondary. The status of theology as the height of knowledge underscores this.

I concede that an organisation need not be religious to be effective. All it needs is an ethos.

I didn't say Newton started out in the Church and moved to science. He couldn't have, for a start: England was no longer a Catholic country. The unifying Catholic matrix had broken up. And then Newton was a religious dissenter, so he kept his religious views very private.

Again, you seem to be arguing weakly that because of religion, Newton, like Mendel, didn't do enough.

But you should cast a little further than Wikipedia.

"One of Isaac Newton’s chief aims for the Principia mathematica was to show that the laws of physics revealed design in the universe—in turn evidence for a Designer. In his famous correspondence with Richard Bentley, Newton revealed this intention: “When I wrote my treatise about our Systeme I had an eye upon such Principles as might work wth considering men for the beleife of a Deity & nothing can rejoyce me more then to find it usefull for that purpose.” Newton told Bentley that “ye diurnal rotations of ye Sun & Planets as they could hardly arise from any cause purely mechanical . . . they seem to make up that harmony in ye systeme wch . . . was the effect of choice rather than of chance.” Newton later added a concluding General Scholium to the Principia in which he made the argument from design explicit, proclaiming that “This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.” The final line of the theological portion of the General Scholium concludes: “And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things, does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy”. "
("To discourse of God: Isaac Newton’s heterodox theology and his natural philosophy", Stephen D. Snobelen).