Where would we be if...

SafeSurfer

Where would we be if all the resources spent on religious worship since the start of civilisation were spent on scientific research instead?

GLaDOS

http://j-walkblog.com/images/darkageschart.gif

Superbus

Probably would have killed each other into extinction long before now without a man in the sky dictating right and wrong.

The Agogo

in space?

orourkeda

nuked or at war

mink_man

I don't know.

mikom

Peadophile Scientists?

orourkeda

who cares

ballsymchugh

the otters would rule.

plein de force

i'll sit this one out

Lust4Life

Interesting question to ponder.
Maybe I would have my flying car!

OutlawPete

In Ricahrd Branson's house shagging his daughter?

daz801

I see this turning into a religion-v-science thread

javaboy

OutlawPete wrote: »

In Ricahrd Branson's house shagging his daughter?

Making his virgin mega sore?

johnmcdnl

ScienceNerd wrote: »

http://j-walkblog.com/images/darkageschart.gif

that actually just sums it up...

ballsymchugh

OutlawPete wrote: »

In Ricahrd Branson's house shagging his daughter?

oh holly! :cool:

skelliser

Well alot of science was spurred on by religion.

the gutenburg bible being a good example.

Senna

I'm guessing the Japanese would have invented a better, smaller, higher resolution, pocket sized God.

Jeboa Safari

johnmcdnl wrote: »

that actually just sums it up...

No it doesn't

Gray

Superbus wrote: »

Probably would have killed each other into extinction long before now without a man in the sky dictating right and wrong.

Don't seem to make much difference in fact plenty of wars have had church blessing

skelliser

ScienceNerd wrote: »

http://j-walkblog.com/images/darkageschart.gif

That graph is so wrong!

Biggins

plein de force wrote: »

i'll sit this one out

Don't blame you.
The ending of this is probably written.

Capt'n Midnight

skelliser wrote: »

Well alot of science was spurred on by religion.

the gutenburg bible being a good example.

actually the Chinese had movable type long before, but it wasn't so practical


the printed book took off because
- paper was cheap compared to the dark ages people were now well off enough to buy new clothes and the old clothes were used to make paper (from the linen)
- spectacles were available, so it was worth learning to read, before there wasn't as much interest since you might not be able to see them later in life


the main science spurred on by religion was the making of clocks and later astromony , religious people made scientific advances because they had free time and education and a lot of them paid dearly

nozzferrahhtoo

An almost impossible question to answer. It wholly comes down to who would have GOT this funding.

Take Newton for example. If you poured all the church money of his day into HIS coffers, it likely would have all got invested in the search for the alchemy holy grail of turning lead into gold.

The conversation between religion and science has been an entirely one way erosion of the former by the latter. This does not negate the fact that the world of science is made up of a core of success surrounded by a layer of bad science, coated with a layer of even worse science.

starbelgrade

I think that by this stage, man would have re-invented the wheel.

OutlawPete

ballsymchugh wrote: »

oh holly! :cool:

Aye ...

MrStuffins

javaboy wrote: »

Making his virgin mega sore?

Brilliant!

MrStuffins

Oh, and my answer?

We'd all be dead. God would have been pissed, Old Testement style, amd drown us all!

Science Shmience!

sponsoredwalk

Living in a world where repetitive posts like these wouldn't pop up,
we'd all be too busy coping with with scarlet fever! :pac:

bazmac09

You would also have to take war into account. Various armies over the centuries have wiped out all of the educated folk in the cities they were conquering to leave them powerless e.g. who knows how many brilliant minds were destroyed without us ever knowing. However I would like to think we would be somewhere quite similar to where we are now...A large part of science is (and i mean no disrespect to the millions of brilliant minds out there) accidental discovery, or at least was. So if anything we would have just got to where we are now faster?

javaboy

The world politically and socially speaking was still in its infancy at the beginning of the dark ages. I think if science had progressed unhindered at that stage we'd probably have blown each other to smithereens.

By the time the means to cause mass destruction became available, society had reached a point where such weapons were considered a deterrent and a last resort.

The slowdown of scientific advancement probably normalised the geographic spread of knowledge. What I mean is that if a particular country say France was a big world power back then and made some breakthrough, they would likely have kept it to themselves. It might have paved the way to more and more advances. International relations were fairly primitive back then so it's likely France would have gone to war with the other countries using their superior tech. So the advanced countries who made breakthroughs and were in a position to exploit them would become more advanced and more powerful while the unlucky countries whose research didn't bear any fruit would be further suppressed.

Instead what happened was the dark ages slowed science down. So advances only trickled out. They filtered out across the world and made for a more level playing field. Nobody got to get too far ahead if you get what I mean.

The world got to grow up before we got to handle anything dangerous. As such I feel we owe religion an enormous debt of gratitude.

MrStuffins

javaboy wrote: »

The world politically and socially speaking was still in its infancy at the beginning of the dark ages. I think if science had progressed unhindered at that stage we'd probably have blown each other to smithereens.

By the time the means to cause mass destruction became available, society had reached a point where such weapons were considered a deterrent and a last resort.

The slowdown of scientific advancement probably normalised the geographic spread of knowledge. What I mean is that if a particular country say France was a big world power back then and made some breakthrough, they would likely have kept it to themselves. It might have paved the way to more and more advances. International relations were fairly primitive back then so it's likely France would have gone to war with the other countries using their superior tech. So the advanced countries who made breakthroughs and were in a position to exploit them would become more advanced and more powerful while the unlucky countries whose research didn't bear any fruit would be further suppressed.

Instead what happened was the dark ages slowed science down. So advances only trickled out. They filtered out across the world and made for a more level playing field. Nobody got to get too far ahead if you get what I mean.

The world got to grow up before we got to handle anything dangerous. As such I feel we owe religion an enormous debt of gratitude.

I prefered his early stuff!

javaboy

MrStuffins wrote: »

I prefered his early stuff!

I had to post that big long waffle to ward off accusations of thanks whoring against the virgin joke.

Owwmykneecap

javaboy wrote: »

The world politically and socially speaking was still in its infancy at the beginning of the dark ages. I think if science had progressed unhindered at that stage we'd probably have blown each other to smithereens.

By the time the means to cause mass destruction became available, society had reached a point where such weapons were considered a deterrent and a last resort.

The slowdown of scientific advancement probably normalised the geographic spread of knowledge. What I mean is that if a particular country say France was a big world power back then and made some breakthrough, they would likely have kept it to themselves. It might have paved the way to more and more advances. International relations were fairly primitive back then so it's likely France would have gone to war with the other countries using their superior tech. So the advanced countries who made breakthroughs and were in a position to exploit them would become more advanced and more powerful while the unlucky countries whose research didn't bear any fruit would be further suppressed.

Instead what happened was the dark ages slowed science down. So advances only trickled out. They filtered out across the world and made for a more level playing field. Nobody got to get too far ahead if you get what I mean.

The world got to grow up before we got to handle anything dangerous. As such I feel we owe religion an enormous debt of gratitude.

That is without doubt the biggest pile of bollocks I've ever read.

And I leafed through Young Irelander magazine in Eason's today.

javaboy

Owwmykneecap wrote: »

That is without doubt the biggest pile of bollocks I've ever read.

Probably. But since neither of us obviously have anything better to do, care to discuss why?

Overheal

Well for one thing it fails to take into account that communication breakthroughs would have strengthened political ties, and the absences of poverty, disease and famine would have gone a long way to prevent the outbreak of war.

Einhard

ScienceNerd wrote: »

http://j-walkblog.com/images/darkageschart.gif

Why is it always the "Christian Dark Ages" and never the "Christian Renaissance"?

Darlughda

Well what fascinates me is how all this money went into building churches, especially during famine times in Ireland, when that money could have been better spent relieving hunger and poverty.

To this day, I cannot understand this anomoly. Why on earth do we have these expensive churches, land owned by religious orders, when people are desperate for somewhere to live?

Capt'n Midnight

Darlughda wrote: »

Well what fascinates me is how all this money went into building churches, especially during famine times in Ireland, when that money could have been better spent relieving hunger and poverty.

To this day, I cannot understand this anomoly. Why on earth do we have these expensive churches, land owned by religious orders, when people are desperate for somewhere to live?

ask the people who donated the money ?

also why should the religious orders have to provide somewhere for people to live , you'd just get people taking the soup. And the state would reduce spending on houses, the reason we have religious schools is that the state does not spend money on building schools. Also there are a few empty houses around , and the state didn't sort out social and affordable housing

Capt'n Midnight

starbelgrade wrote: »

I think that by this stage, man would have re-invented the wheel.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn965-wheel-patented-in-australia.html

John Keogh was issued the innovation patent for a "circular transportation facilitation device" under a patent system introduced in May 2001.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Stupid thread. Just another attack on religion. Let me just say this, our cultural identity would be non-existant. Visiting China would be like going to an Ireland with different weather and different ethnicities. All our beliefs would be pretty much the same.

genericguy

THFC wrote: »

All our beliefs would be pretty much the same.

why is this a bad thing??

starbelgrade

THFC wrote: »

Stupid thread. Just another attack on religion. Let me just say this, our cultural identity would be non-existant.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if Ireland hadn't been under the thumb of the RC Church for so long, that we would have no cultural identity?

Could really be that naive?

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

genericguy wrote: »

why is this a bad thing??

starbelgrade wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to suggest that if Ireland hadn't been under the thumb of the RC Church for so long, that we would have no cultural identity?

Could really be that naive?

How am I being naive? You're just another anti-religious person. Look at communist countries and what good atheism did to their culture. There would certainly be alot more amoral and cynical people. Religion, for the most part, was a good thing, like it or not.

Superbus

Einhard wrote: »

Why is it always the "Christian Dark Ages" and never the "Christian Renaissance"?

Because the non-Christian world wasn't really affected that much.

sensibleken

THFC wrote: »

How am I being naive? You're just another anti-religious person. Look at communist countries and what good atheism did to their culture. There would certainly be alot more amoral and cynical people. Religion, for the most part, was a good thing, like it or not.

im sure im not the only one who laughed at this. Just because someone is an athiest does not mean they dont have morals, nor ones that are similar to yourself.

giving the example of communist countries is also silly. they behaved like that because they were totallitarian murderous lunatics. there have been plenty of totalitarian murderous lunatics who were religious such as Charlemagne

piby

THFC wrote: »

How am I being naive? You're just another anti-religious person. Look at communist countries and what good atheism did to their culture. There would certainly be alot more amoral and cynical people.

So if I'm an atheist I am more immoral and cynical than a religious person? Surely if I derive my morality from intelligent observation and thought about the world around me that is just as, if not more, respectable than taking from a book (Bible, Koran etc.) that was written hundreds or thousands of years ago by other primates?

Can you provide me with specific examples of what exactly atheism did to certain Communist countries?

THFC wrote: »

Religion, for the most part, was a good thing, like it or not.

Persecution of the early Christians by the Romans?
Crusades?
Inquisition?
Modern Islamic Fundamentalism?

Just a few examples you might recall :rolleyes:

sensibleken

This is a question thats impossible to answer.

Firstly religion has been with us as far back as we can see. from at least the neolithic to today so its quite impossible to imagine a history where it didnt exist. most scientific innovations have taken place within a culture of religion be it the greeks, chineese or gregor mendel. the two are not mutually exclusive but we would be a fool to argue that each did not hamper the other at some stange. indeed there has been arguements within the scientific community, the best examples are between einstein and bohr. though in fairness nobody get burnt at the stake for that

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

piby wrote: »

So if I'm an atheist I am more immoral and cynical than a religious person? Surely if I derive my morality from intelligent observation and thought about the world around me that is just as, if not more, respectable than taking from a book (Bible, Koran etc.) that was written hundreds or thousands of years ago by other primates?

Can you provide me with specific examples of what exactly atheism did to certain Communist countries?

Is North Korea on your list of place to visit?



Persecution of the early Christians by the Romans?
Crusades?
Inquisition?
Modern Islamic Fundamentalism?

Just a few examples you might recall :rolleyes:

Are you that cynical? You're just saying the bad stuff. What about all the great works of art and architecture that would never have seen the light of day with out religion? More importantly what about the comfort it gives to so many people arount the world about their loved one's? The structure and and haven it has given so many people? How many times have you heard stories about former drug addicts/criminals turn their life around because they found Jesus/God? And the most influential person in history has had, without doubt, a more positive impact than negative on the lives of so many.
And btw, Islamic Fundamentalism?? Really, you really believe that Islam tells its followers to become terrorists? I wont even bother correct you on that.

sensibleken

THFC wrote: »

Are you that cynical? You're just saying the bad stuff. What about all the great works of art and architecture that would never have seen the light of day with out religion? More importantly what about the comfort it gives to so many people arount the world about their loved one's? The structure and and haven it has given so many people? How many times have you heard stories about former drug addicts/criminals turn their life around because they found Jesus/God? And the most influential person in history has had, without doubt, a more positive impact than negative on the lives of so many.
And btw, Islamic Fundamentalism?? Really, you really believe that Islam tells its followers to become terrorists? I wont even bother correct you on that.

no, youre not getting it. you said that if there was more athiesm there would be more amoral behaviour giving the soviet union as an emaple. you were then given examples of horrendous acts that came as a result of religious beliefs. thus showing you where youre wrong.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

sensibleken wrote: »

no, youre not getting it. you said that if there was more athiesm there would be more amoral behaviour giving the soviet union as an emaple. you were then given examples of horrendous acts that came as a result of religious beliefs. thus showing you where youre wrong.

What!?!? Read my posts again.