Is religion necessary in that it slows down science?

axer

From I can see religion holds back science not just with its "moral" teachings e.g. stem cell research but also science does not have as many heads as often children are brought up to believe that religion holds the answer. Thus scientific geniuses are potentially lost.

Does religion hold back science? and is that actually a good thing to ensure we don't get too far to quickly and ultimately destroy ourselves?

Dades

You could suggest the same thing about many lifestyle choices. Have we lost incredible scientific minds to art, sport, World of Warcraft...?

axer wrote: »

is that actually a good thing to ensure we don't get too far to quickly and ultimately destroy ourselves?

In the absence of religion what would motivate us to destroy ourselves? :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Dades wrote: »

You could suggest the same thing about many lifestyle choices. Have we lost incredible scientific minds to art, sport, World of Warcraft...?

In the absence of religion what would motivate us to destroy ourselves? :pac:

Greed, fear, hate...

Aside from that, I reject the notion that science and religion are at odds.

PDN

Historically it would appear that religion has promoted scientific advancement. Religious institutions set up many of the early universities and clergymen were instrumental in many key scientific breakthroughs.

gramlab

axer wrote: »

From I can see religion holds back science not just with its "moral" teachings e.g. stem cell research but also science does not have as many heads as often children are brought up to believe that religion holds the answer. Thus scientific geniuses are potentially lost.

Does religion hold back science? and is that actually a good thing to ensure we don't get too far to quickly and ultimately destroy ourselves?

Religious scientists contributed a lot though - Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Mendel etc.
Not sure you could say the same in the modern era, or maybe its just that dead people are more famous;)
Plenty of areas of science for people to get into that probably wouldn't clash too badly with their beliefs.

Dades wrote: »

You could suggest the same thing about many lifestyle choices. Have we lost incredible scientific minds to art, sport, World of Warcraft...?

In the absence of religion what would motivate us to destroy ourselves? :pac:

Satan?

Zamboni

Dades wrote: »

You could suggest the same thing about many lifestyle choices. Have we lost incredible scientific minds to art, sport, World of Warcraft...?

Aye. We cannae blame religion on everything.
You could throw in the cult of the celebrity too.
Why would you want to be a boring scientist when you could be the next singstar,superstar, strictly on ice in the jungle celeb?
*closes physics book and reads about Peaches Geldof.

Zombrex

axer wrote: »

From I can see religion holds back science not just with its "moral" teachings e.g. stem cell research but also science does not have as many heads as often children are brought up to believe that religion holds the answer. Thus scientific geniuses are potentially lost.

Does religion hold back science? and is that actually a good thing to ensure we don't get too far to quickly and ultimately destroy ourselves?

As PDN points out religion often goes hand in hand with learning and advancement of understanding.

There seems to be a strong connection between the human desire to learn and understand the world around us and religion. I would subscribe to the idea that this is in fact partly where religion comes from in the first place, people mapping (incorrectly as it turns out) processes they understand, such as human interactions, onto the physical world in an effort to explain it. A strong component of most religions is an attempt to explain why the world is the way it is, often within the framework of some entity (gods or what ever) making human like choices resulting in the world we know.

This process of assigning human like agency to the universe is ultimately very flawed, but one couldn't say it wasn't done in a genuine attempt to increase understanding and learning.

The issue, and the conflict between science and religion, comes when the universe turns out to not act or behave the way the religion's expected it to or promised it would.

This undermines the authority that religion claims to have to explain the universe, often within a context that provides far more to the believer than simple understanding (for example the promise of salvation in Christianity). If the religion could be wrong about the details of the universe, well it could be wrong about all the really important stuff too.

Given the choice between a pleasing explanation of reality, and a neutral or displeasing explanation which undermines all that believers are promised, people often choose the former over the latter. To reconcile this choice invariably the believers will attack the opposing process, which is science in most cases, as being flawed and producing wrong answers. This rationalizes for them the retreat back to the pleasing version of reality presented by religion.

So I wouldn't say religion is against learning and understanding, more that it is a flaw way to gain understanding because it is too tied up in the desires of humans and how humans wish the world to be, rather than a process to study how the world actually is. It is a lazy and flawed process of learning but it still stems from a strong human desire to be curious and to learn.

rockbeer

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Greed, fear, hate...

Aside from that, I reject the notion that science and religion are at odds.

Quite. But as for religion and religion being at odds...

Greed, fear, hate...

Goduznt Xzst

PDN wrote: »

Historically it would appear that religion has promoted scientific advancement. Religious institutions set up many of the early universities and clergymen were instrumental in many key scientific breakthroughs.*

* As long as those breakthroughs where in accordance with the bible

Dades

PDN wrote: »

Historically it would appear that religion has promoted scientific advancement. Religious institutions set up many of the early universities and clergymen were instrumental in many key scientific breakthroughs.

Historically isn't really relevant though. The question is does religion promote or hinder new scientific advancement.

I can't help but see religion as a hindrance, due to my belief that it is completely incompatible with science. Though admittedly I don't see it being on any scale worth being concerned about.

Phototoxin

From I can see religion holds back science not just with its "moral" teachings e.g. stem cell research but also science does not have as many heads as often children are brought up to believe that religion holds the answer. Thus scientific geniuses are potentially lost.

Different relgions are opposed to different things. For example Catholicism is opposed to using embryonic stem cells and for 2 good reasons i) they think its a person, and ii) no cures have been developed from embryonic stem cells as opposed to ethical adult stem cells. In addition stem cells can not be engineered to appear as embryonic ones, the pioneer of the technology in japan has stated that embryonic stem cells are not necessary anymore and that it will be good due to the ethical morass around it. however sale of embryonic stem cells = €€€

As a non believer I still dont agree with embryonic stem cell research and I dont agree with pre-natal screening for diseases as it results in eugenics. However I am a scientist and support scientific progress as long as it is done ethically and for the benifit of humanity. (people like the PETA with their save the lobsters can go to hell!)

ChocolateSauce

For all of history, religion has stifled science either directly or indirectly, and continues to do so to this day. At times, religion has even gone so far as to take action against science. I resoundingly reject the notion that religion has any kind of positive influence on science (except perhaps for those physicists who are motivated by the idea that god created the universal constants to be discovered and understood); if we are going too fast (and I do mean if), there is no reason religion should be the counter-force to slow us down, our own logic and morals would be enough to see the error of our ways. To date however, I see nothing mainstream science does which is morally questionable or culturally destructive.

Malari

Phototoxin wrote: »

I dont agree with pre-natal screening for diseases as it results in eugenics.

Surely not...isn't eugenics about not allowing people to reproduce? And I don't see anything wrong with informing parents about diseases. It doesn't automatically mean they will terminate.

As for whether religion holds back science, I think it's never a good thing if religion interferes, even if it results in self-destruction.

Dades

Malari wrote: »

Surely not...isn't eugenics about not allowing people to reproduce? And I don't see anything wrong with informing parents about diseases. It doesn't automatically mean they will terminate.

Lets knock this one on the head here... it's a whole other discussion.
By all means start a new thread guys, but lets not derail for once.

As you were ON TOPIC.

kthxbye

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Historically it would appear that religion has promoted scientific advancement. Religious institutions set up many of the early universities and clergymen were instrumental in many key scientific breakthroughs.

I think you'll find that many groups of people were institutional to the birth of science, I also think you'll find that the one attribute they share is wealth. Which the Church had no short supply of. The Priesthood also happened to be one of the few castes that it was considered appropriate to learn to read, and through intimidation and violence they maintained strict control over books and teachings. Finally, all of that says nothing about religion's current effect on science.

oobydooby

axer wrote: »

From I can see religion holds back science not just with its "moral" teachings e.g. stem cell research

Do you think this can be attributed to religion or rather to ethics (which has a sound philosophical and areligious basis, despite overlapping with the domain of interest of most religions). What place do you think ethics has in science?

but also science does not have as many heads as often children are brought up to believe that religion holds the answer. Thus scientific geniuses are potentially lost.

The funny answer above by Dades is better perhaps, but children can also be brought up to believe that science has the answers. Or they may come to this conclusion as adolescents/adults. Geniuses are fairly rare and tend to gravitate towards whatever captivates them. Even moderately intellectual people are notoriously difficult to "manage".

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Historically it would appear that religion has promoted scientific advancement.

This is completely false.

Religion, as a provider of "truths" which are revealed and not evidence-based, is fundamentally opposed to science, which relies on evidence and rejects revelation. Religion especially rejects science where it suggests that revealed truth, or some group's interpretation of it, may be less than accurate. Witness our creationist friends and the clueless wilderness they inhabit.

Religion has never promoted scientific advancement in anything but the most half-hearted manner, where it's done so at all, and where it isn't actively opposed to it.

PDN wrote: »

Religious institutions set up many of the early universities and clergymen were instrumental in many key scientific breakthroughs.

Having supervised the destruction of the tradition of Greek and Roman rational thought in the period up to the fourth/fifth centuries, christianity then presided over the neglect and dissolution of much of their technology over the succeeding ones. The universities were created not to develop and explore new information acquired from experiment, but to justify existing conclusions based upon revelation of one kind or another.

There are certainly some isolated cases in which some people were inspired by their own understandings of certain religious ideas -- your quote some months back from Galileo (almost) falls into this category.

Inspiration of the clever notwithstanding, I cannot think of a single piece of real knowledge, or a single real advance in technology, which has been derived from religious knowledge. In these terms, religion is a uniquely, almost brilliantly, sterile field of endeavor.

Tim Robbins

axer wrote: »

From I can see religion holds back science not just with its "moral" teachings e.g. stem cell research but also science does not have as many heads as often children are brought up to believe that religion holds the answer. Thus scientific geniuses are potentially lost.

Does religion hold back science? and is that actually a good thing to ensure we don't get too far to quickly and ultimately destroy ourselves?

I blame poor teaching more than anything else for the public's lack of Scientific acumen.

For example, if evolution was taught properly, by explaining the scientific method, the fossils, the DNA etc it would be impossible for the Intelligent Design brigade to use their fud tactics.

My secondary school basically gave up on Religion because no-one cared and no-one believed in it. The teachers had to stop talking about God and Jesus and just did bits and pieces on social issues for Religion classes.

So Religion certainly didn't hold Science back. But I don't think the average student had much of an appreciation for Science leaving the school.

The problem is that our education system puts too much emphasis on learning things off by heart rather than thinking critically.

oobydooby

robindch wrote: »

This is completely false.

Religion, as a provider of "truths" which are revealed and not evidence-based, is fundamentally opposed to experimental science, which relies on evidence and rejects revelation.

Fixed that for you. Philosophical or theoretical scientists usually work in the abstract and use experimentally-verified evidence to support their theories.

Religion has never promoted scientific advancement in anything but the most half-hearted manner, where it's done so at all, and where it isn't actively opposed to it.Having supervised the destruction of the tradition of Greek and Roman rational thought in the period up to the fourth/fifth centuries, christianity then presided over the neglect and dissolution of much of their technology over the succeeding ones. The universities were created not to develop and explore new information acquired from experiment, but to justify existing conclusions based upon revelation of one kind or another.

Don't know much about that, but I did understand that St Thomas Aquinas christianized the classics. The classics also formed part of a traditional (Christian) education, but that was before my time.

Inspiration of the clever notwithstanding, I cannot think of a single piece of real knowledge, or a single real advance in technology, which has been derived from religious knowledge. In these terms, religion is a uniquely, almost brilliantly, sterile field of endeavor.

Well it's a bit unfair to exclude inspired clever people but Mozart and Michelangelo and their requisite technical advances leap out! As for advances in society - many of the fundamental societal pillars had religious origins, legislature, justice, education, hospitals etc. Warfare and weaponry is another good one:) Also agricultural practices were influenced by religions. Pretty fundamental stuff. What kind of example are you looking for? A modern-day invention which lay hidden in the pages of scriptures?

Galvasean

oobydooby wrote: »

What kind of example are you looking for? A modern-day invention which lay hidden in the pages of scriptures?

That's potentially a very interesting side point. Not wanting to sound like "But what have the religions done for us (science) lately?"...

Perhaps religion has outlived it's usefulness to science ? I can't think of one important scientific advancement since the turn of the Century that was religiously motivated (I'm open to be corrected however).
In other words has science learned all it can from religion and should it proceed to distance itself from it?

robindch

oobydooby wrote: »

As for advances in society - many of the fundamental societal pillars had religious origins, legislature, justice, education, hospitals etc.

Er, no they didn't, inasmuch as anything is known about the origins of any of these things. In general, religion is believed to have parasitized upon these things, not been responsible for producing any of them.

oobydooby wrote: »

Also agricultural practices were influenced by religions. Pretty fundamental stuff. What kind of example are you looking for? A modern-day invention which lay hidden in the pages of scriptures?

No, I'm looking for anything at all really. Any technological or medical or physical or chemical (etc, etc) advance which would not have happened if religious knowledge had not provided its basis.

After all, if Jesus/Mohammad/Zoroaster/Whoever was the direct and sole representative of the creator of the universe here on earth, I think it's quite reasonable to expect him to know something which would help people to live happier and longer lives.

It seems that none of them did and that simple fact really does suggest something quite strong about their claims to knowledge above and beyond the primitive societies in which they lived.

pH

An interesting book to give you one perspective of how a major religion viewed science, and what exactly science means, is "Galileo's daughter" by Dava Sobel. Even ignoring the whole heliocentric solar system thing, there's an interesting bit on Galileo confronting the commonly held 'scientific' belief that ice was heavier than water, and only floated because of its shape (it wasn't pointy enough to push through the water).

Even though a couple of simple experiments could show conclusively that ice is in fact less dense than water, this meant very little. 'Science' (if indeed you can call it that) was rooted very much in philosophy and theology, and in a very literal sense, evidence and experiment meant very little, clever arguments and respected opinions on the other hand meant a lot.

There was a genuine belief that despite whatever 'evidence' Galileo had on his side, this could be countered by a clever argument (ala philosophy) and by referencing authoritative sources.

Most would agree that Galileo's methods form the foundation for science as we know it today, and while he himself was a devout Catholic, there is very little evidence that any part of Catholicism influenced or helped him achieve this, and much that he did it all despite his faith and the workings of the church.

On a side note, none of the major world religions seem to value science, Jesus never gave us the germ theory of disease (think of how many lives that could have saved if it had spread as a tenet of Christianity!), nor does any scripture really admonish us in scientific endeavour. Sure in 16C Italy the rich has their pet scientists, and there were a few "universities" teaching an age old mixture of Greek maths, geometry, philosophy, bizarrely wrong physics and Christian theology, but there's no reason to believe this was about discovering the world around us, it was more about perpetuating Christian thinking and self-aggrandisement than anything else.

foxxykitsune

i would tend to agree due to the fact that religion claims science is wrong trying to prove things. its not always mentally healthy to go around worshipping sumthing that might be part of ones imagination. but adding to that schools like where i am at force you into religion and say if u dont care or dont beleive why are you here even if you cannot leave the school they speak little of the scientific matter and solely on this jesus and god etc.

Zillah

I started reading this thread without realising it was an old one. I tried to thank a post and saw that I had already thanked it, and I was going to post a response and saw that I had already posted that response. Trippy.

foxxykitsune

sounds trippy indeed

Blackhorse Slim

robindch wrote: »

I'm looking for anything at all really. Any technological or medical or physical or chemical (etc, etc) advance which would not have happened if religious knowledge had not provided its basis.

Precession of the earth was discovered by ancient Greeks, Mayans, and (I think) ancient Egyptians, through religious observations of the heavens. In fact a lot of early Greek mathematics was considered religous.

foxxykitsune

yes that is understandable but what about when eventually when religion had decided that what science was doing was wrong and against "God" and how it was wrong to teach let alone know the theory of evolution?

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

I started reading this thread without realising it was an old one. I tried to thank a post and saw that I had already thanked it, and I was going to post a response and saw that I had already posted that response. Trippy.

Likewise.

It's stunning how much progress we've all made in the last year, isn't it?

foxxykitsune

true this fox may be new here but ive already got the hang of it and it seems i fit in simply aswell *opens and reads a silverwing book*

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

I started reading this thread without realising it was an old one. I tried to thank a post and saw that I had already thanked it, and I was going to post a response and saw that I had already posted that response. Trippy.

Ah good 'ol Fatalism in action. A year from now this thread will be re-bumped, you'll go through the same actions again, think to reply about how trippy the experience was, see you already have and your head will explode.

I thought it was a new thread as well until I seen Fanny's post. It's been a while since Fanny became jaded with arguing in topics on this side of the fence.

foxxykitsune

o....k