How much did Religion set back Science and Technological progress?

Colmustard

jhegarty wrote: »

Wasn't it Caesar who burned Alexandria ?

It was just war afaik , not a religion thing.

No the early Christians just after they raped and killed Hypatia a woman scientist and teacher who did early work in hydraulics and astronomical observations. The astrolabe was her invention.

But in truth the Library was a pagan worship temple as well. That irked the good Christians.

It could be argued the church promoted literacy and many 18 and 19th centuries famous discoveries were made by priests and vickers, because they had a well paying job with little else to do, so they dabbled in research.

The_Minister

Kivaro wrote: »

Religion advanced the sciences in some areas, for example look at all the gadgetry the Catholics created for their inquisitions.
It's a shame that all the female heretics were hiding the signs of the devil in their pubic regions, because it forced the priests to spend countless hours searching the victim's genitalia before they were tortured and hideously murdered.

Yay religion.

The Pit and the Pendulum?

Wibbs

Kivaro wrote: »

Religion advanced the sciences in some areas, for example look at all the gadgetry the Catholics created for their inquisitions.
It's a shame that all the female heretics were hiding the signs of the devil in their pubic regions, because it forced the priests to spend countless hours searching the victim's genitalia before they were tortured and hideously murdered.

Yay religion.

Eh no. Most of that is later Protestant/reformation propaganda and hollywood invention I'm afraid. The various inquisitions had a very low death sentence rate(less than 3%). Far lower than civil/state courts. They also had strict rules governing torture, which was also used in a very limited way. The "signs of the devil" was more commonly found in various protestant sects who were gung ho for killing witches. Far more than catholics.

Depending on the period in history various religions did advance various fields of science. Take physics. Without the jesuits in the 18th century our understanding of physics would be the lesser. A point which Newton made clear even though he was "on the other side"(another religious type. He wrote more on theology than on the sciences). The aforementioned Muslims in the early medieval period because of their access to the ancient Greek world made huge strides of their own in the sciences. Genetics. The first real groundbreaking study into genetic inheritance was by a catholic priest with the full backing of the church who funded him and his lab.

Another advantage in Europe at least was that the church and state were nominally separate, in theory if not in practice for much of the time. This led to two largely separate lines of educated men and women. In contrast to say China where the only way to get an education and get ahead was through the apparatus of the state. This division in Europe was one of our "killer apps".

Shenshen

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh no. Most of that is later Protestant/reformation propaganda and hollywood invention I'm afraid. The various inquisitions had a very low death sentence rate(less than 3%). Far lower than civil/state courts. They also had strict rules governing torture, which was also used in a very limited way. The "signs of the devil" was more commonly found in various protestant sects who were gung ho for killing witches. Far more than catholics.

Depending on the period in history various religions did advance various fields of science. Take physics. Without the jesuits in the 18th century our understanding of physics would be the lesser. A point which Newton made clear even though he was "on the other side"(another religious type. He wrote more on theology than on the sciences). The aforementioned Muslims in the early medieval period because of their access to the ancient Greek world made huge strides of their own in the sciences. Genetics. The first real groundbreaking study into genetic inheritance was by a catholic priest with the full backing of the church who funded him and his lab.

Another advantage in Europe at least was that the church and state were nominally separate, in theory if not in practice for much of the time. This led to two largely separate lines of educated men and women. In contrast to say China where the only way to get an education and get ahead was through the apparatus of the state. This division in Europe was one of our "killer apps".

Bugger, forgot about Gregor Mendel. Thanks for pointing that one out.
Although I have to admit that during biology lessons, I was given to understand that his research was regarded more as a quaint hobby by his superiors, and their support was more down the lines of allowing him a little indulgence rather than helping him in his quest. But then, it took decades for anyone to realise how much ahead of his time Mendel had actually been.

Colmustard

It could also be said that religion is a science, as in it gave people an explanation with the limited knowledge they had at that time.

Science only advanced when there was a philosophical leap, that philosophical leap was the scientific method which ironically is credited to Galileo as he did face a trial of heresy for his book the Dialogue, which was a fictional Dialogue with the Pope supporting Copernicus theory of a heliocentric universe.

He got off lightly in comparison to other heretics, he was put under house arrest for the rest of his life. Pope John Paul the second did apologise on behalf of the church for their treatment of Galileo.

Wibbs

Shenshen wrote: »

Although I have to admit that during biology lessons, I was given to understand that his research was regarded more as a quaint hobby by his superiors, and their support was more down the lines of allowing him a little indulgence rather than helping him in his quest.

Not really. They paid for his further study and his experiments with both plants and bees. The monastery he was attached to actually had a long term laboratory, the plants and records of same having been started long before him. He wasn't a one off, support was long standing. He "just" continued and focused the work into an actual theory. Before him the Jesuit physicists were also supported and bankrolled by the church. The Vatican observatory was bankrolled since the 17th century. The church had an interest in astronomy going way back, if nothing else to fix the calendar dates of religious events, in particular Easter(which was a subject of intense debate and one the early Irish church had many a disagreement with Rome about). Then you can look at philosophy. While not a science it has led to great insights into the natural reality and life and the church was chock full of great philosophers. One of the greatest in the early days was our own John Scottus, a towering intellect.

MOC88

I didn't read the thread so sorry if I'm reposting tany information hee

historically... writing and mathematics developed from religion - even as far back as cave drawings/ figurines etc. whcih could be considered a basic non verbal communication -
the main progress of maths and keping records developed between around the middle eastern and nowaday egyptian religous area thousands of years ago mainly as they liked to keep records of their holdings because they were relatively large organisations for their day - most mathematics and wirting from this period were nearly exclusively religious - not because of a ban but because very few others were interested

this arguably pushed forward human developments thousands(if not more) of years

also big urban areas were rare up until relatively recently and many centred around religous communities - writing etc.was propogated by religious orders

until priniting was developed and brought mainstream there was very little literature outside of religous - mainly theatre as there was very little reason for knwoing how to read and write ie. it would have always been a waste of time for 99% of people to know how to read and write.

Having religous orders ensured that a larger proportion did know

Religion also provided a lot more stability than otherwise would have been available and a lot of continuity in the world than otherwise would have been present - religious ties were much stronger than national ones - indeed national identity etc. is relatively recent to human history.

Thid is a very simple overview tbh but without religion its very unlikely we would ebw here we are.
If it's a criticism of a specific religion provide a timeframe and the religion - possibly also examples/policies

Toby Take a Bow

philologos wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by religion, but in terms of Christianity, it is growing faster than it ever has before on a global level.

What with the human population increasing on such a rapid scale, surely that would be expected? As well as there not being a manner in which people can leave the (Catholic) Church. At least not officially.

ScumLord

I see early religion as science beta, the two ask similar big questions just go about the answers in different ways.

It's all progress, even mistakes lead to truth. In fact it's mostly mistakes that educate us.

Actor

Religion and science aren't at odds with each other as is popularly believed from the misinformed commentary on this thread.

Religious persons are informed by science and scientists are (or at least they should be) informed by religion. A complementary situation. It's usually the bitter atheists who bicker the loudest and would have you believe otherwise.

When I stare into a telescope or a microscope, I see God's beauty. When an atheist stares into a telescope; all he sees is a mess of equations that will "one day be solved".

americano787

None. The lord jesus is your saviour. Atheists are morons.

Cú Giobach

Actor wrote: »

Religion and science aren't at odds with each other as is popularly believed from the misinformed commentary on this thread.

That depends on the religion really, for example fundamentalist Islam and Christianity are both certainly at odds with science today. Not excepting facts (eg the great age of the Earth) is the antithesis of science.

Religious persons are informed by science and scientists are (or at least they should be) informed by religion. A complementary situation. It's usually the bitter atheists who bicker the loudest and would have you believe otherwise.

I can understand people or scientists being informed by religious people about science, as scientists can and do have religious beliefs as many of the great scientific thinkers of old did. But as to "scientists can be informed by religion" I don't really understand what you mean by that, any chance you could explain?

When I stare into a telescope or a microscope, I see God's beauty. When an atheist stares into a telescope; all he sees is a mess of equations that will "one day be solved".

Quite wrong, when you look into a telescope you see God's beauty, when I look into a telescope I see beauty. The only way we differ is in how we feel the beauty came about.

Actor

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That depends on the religion really, for example fundamentalist Islam and Christianity are both certainly at odds with science today. Not excepting facts (eg the great age of the Earth) is the antithesis of science.

Now you're being very disingenous. As you may know, time is not constant; and in the context of the Old Testament, the Earth could well be 6000 "years" old. Catholicism has no qualms with science. Equally, scientists should have no fear of Catholicism. Historically there have been conflicts (obviously), but when theology and science meet there will always be abrasion. It takes time and thought to work out these differences.

I can understand people or scientists being informed by religious people about science, as scientists can and do have religious beliefs as many of the great scientific thinkers of old did. But as to "science can be informed by religion" I don't really understand what you mean by that, any chance you could explain?

Quite wrong, when you look into a telescope you see God's beauty, when I look into a telescope I see beauty. The only way we differ is in how we feel the beauty came about.

Random permutations in the ether spontaneously colliding to create this scientifically unexplainable thing called "life" eh?

Cú Giobach

Actor wrote: »

Now you're being very disingenous. As you may know, time is not constant; and in the context of the Old Testament, the Earth could well be 6000 "years" old. Catholicism has no qualms with science. Equally, scientists should have no fear of Catholicism. Historically there have been conflicts (obviously), but when theology and science meet there will always be abrasion. It takes time and thought to work out these differences.

You are the one being disingenuous I'm afraid, as I mentioned no time for the age of the Earth I just said it was ancient, and that those who believe otherwise are actually going against everything that science stands for.
Most educated Catholics do not actually believe the world is only 6000 years old, and I think the Vatican Scientist would agree with me there.
The Earth (using the term year in its vernacular form) is approx 4.5 billion years old. Going against this is as I said, the antithesis of science.

Random permutations in the ether spontaneously colliding to create this scientifically unexplainable thing called "life" eh?

I don't know where life came from and neither do you, the only difference between us is that, I know I don't know, but you don't, you only actually think you know where it came from.

It takes time and thought to work out these differences

True indeed, it often takes quite a while for the religious to let go of long held ideas that have been proven to be incorrect.

Wibbs

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Most educated Catholics do not actually believe the world is only 6000 years old, and I think the Vatican Scientist would agree with me there.

I'd reckon so. Given it was a Church of Ireland minister, one Bishop Ussher who came up with the date for your more nutty literalists today. AFAIR the mainstream catholic church were pretty meh on the notion and vague in general. Augustine of Hippo going way back acknowledged the allegorical nature of Genesis, as did others. The more nutty literalists throughout the ages have tended to be in reaction to the more mainstream churches and that contnues today. The American seemingly mainstream viewpoint likely comes from the fact that America was founded by and attracted the various Protestant sects, some of whom are more literalist than others, so the oddball became mainstream by concentration. Hence though Europe did kick back against Darwinism at the time, it was relatively shortlived and we didn't tend to have the "monkey trial" type guff so much.

In some ways America is like the Christian version of Islam in Saudi Arabia. More literalist, more extreme in the popular mind. It didn't help that the US' educational system started to dumb down from it's previous high water mark. People can forget that it was mostly Bible belt, Mom's apple pie, good ol boys driving pickups who put a man on the moon. Add in their media really dumbing down, taking the piss and chomping "facts" into 1 minute soundbites, fast food for the brain and no wonder you end up with so many folks being scientifically lost.

ITs a damn shame too. A few years back I recall watching a debate on some US TV programme or other talking about presidential candidates. I think it was the one Bush Jr ended up winning. One candidate was rejected in vox pops and by the "experts" as being too wordy and intellectual which alienated voters(and he was hardly a towering intellect). This is the same nation of people who were happy to elect Abraham Lincoln at a time when many of those listening to his speeches would be barely able to read and write, yet they could easily inderstand and appreciate this: And remember this was mostly an audience of "ordinary people"

Honest Abe wrote:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

There is no way in hell Obama's speech writers or anyone elses would give the green light to that speech and worse, sure as hell there isn't one of the incumbents or candidates or their cabal of hired hacks could bloody well write it.

Christ I'm really going on tangents tonight. :eek::o:D

af_thefragile

^If you read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, he deals in much detail how the American masses have been dumbed down by the media from what they used to be. How Americans came from a very literally tradition and authors like Charles Dickens were considered popular fiction writers and how most people today wouldn't be able to comprehend the Lincoln-Douglas debates while back then those were conducted for the common people to follow.

Wibbs

af_thefragile wrote: »

^If you read Amusing Ourselves to Death by Neil Postman, he deals in much detail how the American masses have been dumbed down by the media from what they used to be. How Americans came from a very literally tradition and authors like Charles Dickens were considered popular fiction writers and how most people today wouldn't be able to comprehend the Lincoln-Douglas debates while back then those were conducted for the common people to follow.

Yea AF, and I have to say it does sadden me. Before he married later in life, my da lived in the US in the early 50's for a time and his talk of those he worked and hung out with and of the everyday American peeps he knew and met was chalk and cheese to the image and sadly oft reality of those self same American's grandkids. So for me it's slightly personal

I'm a member of a couple of Yank forums and it's so not that they've suddenly become thick overnight. NO way, it's down to the crap they're exposed to. So much of it is anti-think. When you post other less US mainstream stuff and/or link to same they're mostly all ears. Yea you do get the odd Youtube cross-eyed fcukwit, but we get them here too, only they're nuked from space more quickly . More often they come back with their own stuff and more debate and questions. Now this is just IMH, but what I've found is so so many are crying out for more than the mainstream gives them. And they still can produce the goods. I mean look at their non mainstream HBO type output. Even stuff like mythbusters is incredibly popular, even though they bring out the carrot of big explosions. Nathin wrong with that either. I like a big bang myself and sure where would the universe be without one?

I suppose what it was that made them great is ultimately what may drag them down. The pursuit of money and the common denominator. They pretty much gave us the modern cnsumer society and it was grand for a while, but the honeymoon period is waning slightly, no more so than in the US. With any endeavour the trick is to know when to cry Halt. Whether that be art, or business, or culture, or religion, or science. Too much of a good thing is almost always a bad thing.

Wibbs

Cú Giobach wrote: »

True indeed, it often takes quite a while for the religious to let go of long held ideas that have been proven to be incorrect.

Oh defo, though to be fair CG, that's part and parcel of the human condition and can easily be said of art, culture and yes, science as it can be said of religion. Anything that internally refuses to change is doomed to be at best sidelined, at worst die off.

Cú Giobach

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ I'm really going on tangents tonight. :eek::o:D

One well worth reading though. Good post.
Worth remembering though is that even with the issues you mention, places like MIT, CIT...... etc along with all the other, what are considered many of the world's best universities, are still churning out good science and scientists.
The US is still well up there on that front, we can let the plebs do their thing, mere peasants, and lets hope the so called "elite" don't interfere to much with the real Elite.

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh defo, though to be fair CG, that's part and parcel of the human condition and can easily be said of art, culture and yes, science as it can be said of religion. Anything that internally refuses to change is doomed to be at best sidelined, at worst die off.

Holding on to an idea after it has been proven to be wrong isn't science. You can accuse a (so called) scientist of that, but not science.