1. Standard memberAlcra
    Lazy Sod
    Everywhere
    Joined
    12 Oct '04
    Moves
    8623
    17 Mar '05 13:31
    Since we have the opposite thread running amock further down, how about some enlightened debate on this topic.

    All (intelligent) opinions welcome.
  2. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    17 Mar '05 13:36
    Wanna start us off?
  3. Standard memberAlcra
    Lazy Sod
    Everywhere
    Joined
    12 Oct '04
    Moves
    8623
    17 Mar '05 13:45
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Wanna start us off?
    OK, since I started the thread I should be first in the firing line...

    Religious rule and intolerance in the middle ages delayed scientific progress. This was due to the need for scientists to work under cover for fear of being branded heretics. Had this not been the case, the world would have been more scientifically advanced by now.
  4. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    17 Mar '05 15:53
    Hmm, upon consideration it seems to me that the same arguements will be employed here as in the opposing thread.
  5. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23661
    17 Mar '05 16:34
    Originally posted by Alcra
    Since we have the opposite thread running amock further down, how about some enlightened debate on this topic.

    All (intelligent) opinions welcome.

    Religion built the human civilisations, including science.
  6. Standard memberdj2becker
    Tiger's ghost
    Shetland cemetery
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    17 Mar '05 18:133 edits
    Originally posted by ivanhoe

    Religion built the human civilisations, including science.
    How did you guess? πŸ˜‰
  7. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23661
    17 Mar '05 19:37
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    How did you guess? πŸ˜‰

    It is the truth. Simple as that ...... πŸ˜‰
  8. Standard memberNemesio
    Ursulakantor
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Joined
    05 Mar '02
    Moves
    32455
    18 Mar '05 05:32
    Originally posted by ivanhoe

    Religion built the human civilisations, including science.
    I don't find this claim surprising or even problematic. The idea of 'God' can be a strong
    motivating factor.

    Consider the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel (for a clichéπŸ˜‰: only a fool would say that it isn't
    a brilliant work of art. Consider Bach's Mass in b: only a fool would deny its genius.

    Relgion has been the inspiration of some of the greatest poetry and literature (e.g., Divine Comedy
    or Paradise Lost, respectively). Religion one of stones of the foundation of culture.

    I've picked things related to Christianity, but by no means to I mean to suggest that THAT religion
    is the sole source of inspiration (they just happen to be the ones that popped into my mind).

    At the same time, it one can easily demonstrate that religion has quashed a great deal of
    creativity. Without considering all of the lives needlessly lost in the name of religion, one can
    easily trace those circumstance in history when creativity was stifled because the fruits of that
    creativity were in conflict with religion. As I noted in another thread, Thomas Paine was essentially
    run out of America because of his views on religion (views protected by the very government
    persecuting him, a government he had in the past defended). Science, especially, bears the brunt
    of it, but so too does sociology (XYZ is deemed sociologically unacceptable because 'the Bible
    says so'πŸ˜‰.

    So, I suspect it is a wash. There are many cultural benefits and many liabilities, as I see it.

    Nemesio
  9. Copenhagen
    Joined
    31 May '04
    Moves
    6955
    18 Mar '05 06:481 edit
    Originally posted by ivanhoe

    Religion built the human civilisations, including science.
    As far as I see it, religion can only develop a civilization so far. Once a civilization reaches the scientific era, religion needs to step back and let science be the main inspiration for the development of society.
    It is therefor my opinion that you can't get to have a scientifically based society without the previous religious phase, so in effect you could say that religion built science. The problem is that once you have the scintific society religion isn't needed anymore, which many people have a hard time coping with.

    EDIT: can't spell
  10. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    18 Mar '05 11:24
    science and relgion, the previos post stated we would be more scientific more now? well that may or may not be, But how would we be moraly without it (religion)
  11. Standard memberMaustrauser
    Lord Chook
    Stringybark
    Joined
    16 Nov '03
    Moves
    88863
    18 Mar '05 11:31
    Originally posted by stoker
    science and relgion, the previos post stated we would be more scientific more now? well that may or may not be, But how would we be moraly without it (religion)
    But religion doesn't provide morals. Our human nature does!

    Think of all the rules in the Bible. So few are kept. We have tossed out nearly all the rules in Deuteronomy.

    We don't kill people, not through any Biblical reason (the Bible is full of slaughter - some even supposedly righteous), but because it lessons the amount of DNA heading happily into the future and the fact that if I kill someone then they might kill me. I don't covet my neighbours wife cos I don't want him coveting mine! I don't thieve cos I don't want someone thieving from me and I believe that communities only survive when people can trust each other. It is our survival instinct that gives us morals. Not religion.
  12. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    18 Mar '05 11:32
    Originally posted by stoker
    science and relgion, the previos post stated we would be more scientific more now? well that may or may not be, But how would we be moraly without it (religion)
    Morality is not a creation of religion and as such I doubt whether it would be much different to how we see it today. Morality is determined by the needs, pressures and resources of society and it's individuals, not by religion. Religion has claimed to have ownership of morality, but in my opinion it is unlikely that a lack of religion would make much difference to the morals of society as a whole.
  13. Standard memberAlcra
    Lazy Sod
    Everywhere
    Joined
    12 Oct '04
    Moves
    8623
    18 Mar '05 11:39
    If memory serves, the first 5 commandments are "god" related, the last five are "human related"

    With the possible exception of the first 5, these were around long before Moses dragged them down from Mt Sinai.

    Thou shalt not steal - well yes, that has been around FOREVER.

    I doubt religion developed these laws, rather religion came into being after these "laws" were part of human culture.
  14. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    23661
    18 Mar '05 15:091 edit
    For people who want to dig in deeper:

    The encyclical "Fides et Ratio" ["Faith and Reason"] 1998 :

    http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM


    A quote:

    " 47. It should also be borne in mind that the role of philosophy itself has changed in modern culture. From universal wisdom and learning, it has been gradually reduced to one of the many fields of human knowing; indeed in some ways it has been consigned to a wholly marginal role. Other forms of rationality have acquired an ever higher profile, making philosophical learning appear all the more peripheral. These forms of rationality are directed not towards the contemplation of truth and the search for the ultimate goal and meaning of life; but instead, as “instrumental reason”, they are directed—actually or potentially—towards the promotion of utilitarian ends, towards enjoyment or power."

  15. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36063
    18 Mar '05 16:06
    Originally posted by Alcra
    OK, since I started the thread I should be first in the firing line...

    Religious rule and intolerance in the middle ages delayed scientific progress. This was due to the need for scientists to work under cover for fear of being branded heretics. Had this not been the case, the world would have been more scientifically advanced by now.
    OK - now I'm going to ask for substantiation here. Which specific scientists do you think worked under cover for fear of being branded heretics?
Back to Top