contributions of science/technology vs contribut by religion
-
William Wilberforce was convicted by his religious beliefs that slavery is wrong. So he acted on his beliefs with his position in the government to push for the abolition of slavery.Originally posted by january:abolition of slavery probably comes under governance and not so much of science or religion.
As you can see, unlike science, religious beliefs sometimes move invisibly. So it is really difficult to compare between the two. -
By the same token, the South was predominently Christian and they strongly believed that their religion supported slavery.Originally posted by sillyme:William Wilberforce was convicted by his religious beliefs that slavery is wrong. So he acted on his beliefs with his position in the government to push for the abolition of slavery.
As you can see, unlike science, religious beliefs sometimes move invisibly. So it is really difficult to compare between the two.
So the argument that religion cannot act as a moral compass still stands. People simply pick and choose and believe what they want to believe.
It is science and reason that shows us that we truely are all equal, and that our concept of race is an illusion.
Bible support for slavery:
Exodus 21:2-11 (King James Version) is a detail instruction on the law of how slaves should be treated.
2If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
Leviticus 25:44 (King James Version)
44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
1 Peter 2:18 (King James Version)
18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." -
Let's also not forget that the religiously dominiated Middle Ages is also referred to as the Dark Ages.
The Age of Enlightenment that came in the 17th and 18th century advocated Reason as the primary basis of authority. -
Originally posted by january:
Don't we already have a lot of resources diverted into science? (I'm not suggesting we stop.) If you've read Newsweek's 29th May issue, you'd have noticed that a group of scientists are already researching the possibilities of programming DNA manually (something that could possibly be called 'playing God'). The reason why it seems that a lot of money is being taken in by religious bodies like the Vatican is because of greater media coverage. More media coverage =/= More money being placed there.
the point is that we have to divert resources and people focus onto science/tech more than religion so that more work can be done.
religion activities and ritual take up time and give people a false sense of direction all will be better after ritual, which is not true.
all will be better if people value research, and knowledge seeking, practise science and contribute towards inventions and stuff, think and be creativeto come out with real solutions to real world.
rituals are just rituals and rituals held every month,very year and it goes on and on and on and in the end, there is very little output.
humans have finite resources and finite time. we cannot afford to be waste on time doing unproductive things.[/b]
What rituals are you referring to? Rain dances? If you mean praying, it allows people to have a place to express their worries and fears. Keeping all those inside of you isn't exactly healthy, and not many would go to a psychoanalyst (which some people have labelled as 'pseudo-science'). There's an equal amount of rifts and divides within the scientific world as the religious one.
Besides, are you so sure that all will be better if we started thinking logically? Great feats have been accomplished because some people do irrational things that eventually work out.
No one thought that heavier-than-air flight was possible, and in fact, many called it reckless and irrational, until the Wright Brothers did it.
No one thought that driving cars would overtake horses until Ford made it possible for every middle-class family to drive one.
War heroes have been known to take reckless and irrational action, and yet survive and save the lives of many.
Again, your tirade on output is impractical. Do we really need to be doing something you call "real work" everyday of our lives? Isn't typing this response a waste of time and effort in that sense? Do you not want your weekends where you can rest and do something that is fun for you? Do you not want your festivals like Deepavali, Chinese New Year and Hari Raya as days of rest for catching up with friends? Life is not all about work. Anyway, what you term "rituals" can also be good opportunities to make friends and connections (especially for the pragmatic-minded).
Yes, the world sucks today. Humans have made mistakes in the past. However, we should not be suggesting wiping out certain factors just so that we can avoid them. Rather, we should be working around them.
Here are some good links:
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=22033
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality
http://www.dti.gov.uk/science/science-funding/budget/page28923.html
http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcs/funding/scibudget -
That is why when we realise a mindset is wrong, we must set out to make things right. Wilberforce used his whole life to correct the mindsets his fellow believers.Originally posted by Phaze:By the same token, the South was predominently Christian and they strongly believed that their religion supported slavery.
So the argument that religion cannot act as a moral compass still stands. People simply pick and choose and believe what they want to believe.
It is science and reason that shows us that we truely are all equal, and that our concept of race is an illusion.
You maybe right that we pick the things we want to believe in. Similarly, if we think science is good, we can only see good in it.
I think whichever contributes "more" doesn't make anything superior. As long as it works for the good of all things, it is good. -
Serious contradiction in there, friend.Originally posted by sillyme:I think whichever contributes "more" doesn't make anything superior. As long as it is superior and works for the good of all things, it is good. -
Typo. Edited. Sorry about that.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Serious contradiction in there, friend. -
Science is neither good nor bad. Those are human judgements.Originally posted by sillyme:That is why when we realise a mindset is wrong, we must set out to make things right.
You maybe right that we pick the things we want to believe in. Similarly, if we think science is good, we can only see good in it.
I think whichever contributes "more" doesn't make anything superior. As long as it is superior and works for the good of all things, it is good.
Science and the scientific method are just ways of knowing. What we do with that knowledge is open to criticisms of 'good' and 'bad' as value judgements.
My view is that we should come to those standards of 'good' and 'bad' by using reason, rather than using an ancient book.
We are imperfect. We have, and will make many mistakes. As we grow in knowledge, we are able to make better decisions. There is no need to create an imaginary moral authority to absolve us from responsibility of our moral judgements. -
Sillyme,
I would also like to extend my appreciation to you for coming here to share your views with us.
Although I suspect my arguments may seem harsh at times, please accept that I mean no offense.
If I seem to be picking on Christianity more than other religions, it is only because Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with. My views really apply to all religions.
Thank you once more. -
It is true that we should grow in knowledge.Originally posted by Phaze:Science is neither good nor bad. Those are human judgements.
Science and the scientific method are just ways of knowing. What we do with that knowledge is open to criticisms of 'good' and 'bad' as value judgements.
My view is that we should come to those standards of 'good' and 'bad' by using reason, rather than using an ancient book.
We are imperfect. We have, and will make many mistakes. As we grow in knowledge, we are able to make better decisions. There is no need to create an imaginary moral authority to absolve us from responsibility of our moral judgements.
How do we come up standards of 'good' and 'bad' by logical reason without any moral, cultural and ethical bias? As you said, science is neither good nor bad. -
No offense takenOriginally posted by Phaze:Sillyme,
I would also like to extend my appreciation to you for coming here to share your views with us.
Although I suspect my arguments may seem harsh at times, please accept that I mean no offense.
If I seem to be picking on Christianity more than other religions, it is only because Christianity is the religion I am most familiar with. My views really apply to all religions.
Thank you once more.
I am also trying avoid talking on any specific religion. Just that I will only quote examples from the Christian view so that I can only speak for our side. Lest that I am misunderstood by other religions. -
SturmDerSchatten,
Please correct me if I mischaracterize your arguments.
Your argument appears to me that if something works, or gives comfort, we should accept it even if it isn't true.
Even though I am a pragmatist, I'm not sure I am comfortable with that. I believe we can get great comfort from the truth if we are willing to change our perspective.
Your other arguement is that reason and logic cannot account for creativity. You basically define reason and logic as a box. To think "out of the box", you need to go beyond reason and logic.
I disgree with this. First of all, religion is not neccessary for creativity. In fact, religion is detrimental to creativity. We are creative when we look for new answers and solutions. Religion claims that we already have the answers. -
No problem, you got it right. Hmm. That's a rare thing to happen.Originally posted by Phaze:SturmDerSchatten,
Please correct me if I mischaracterize your arguments.
Your argument appears to me that if something works, or gives comfort, we should accept it even if it isn't true.
Even though I am a pragmatist, I'm not sure I am comfortable with that. I believe we can get great comfort from the truth if we are willing to change our perspective.
Your other arguement is that reason and logic cannot account for creativity. You basically define reason and logic as a box. To think "out of the box", you need to go beyond reason and logic.
I disgree with this. First of all, religion is not neccessary for creativity. In fact, religion is detrimental to creativity. We are creative when we look for new answers and solutions. Religion claims that we already have the answers.
The "isn't true" part can be very subjective, and I'm going to avoid that, because it would take a whole essay to say anything substantial.
The awful truth (irony, haha!) is that there are many out there who do not know what to do with their lives. Those who approach religion tend to be redeemed; this is a fact. Broken souls and hearts who approach fathers or monks or imams will tend to be healed through religion. Whether the god behind it all exists or not is a debate that has been going on for very long (We'll leave my beliefs out of this one, since I'm trying to be objective.)
Not everyone has the tenacity and passion to search for the atheistic version of "truth". You have to understand that in this case, Science is the main instrument for revealing that truth, and Science is not a good friend of the people. Why? For one, it is elitist and arrogant. If you're not someone important, or if you don't have a good background, no one's going to take you seriously. Second, Science does not have the appeal of religion, where everyone is made to feel blessed and important. In fact, many are intimidated by Science, and perhaps, that is why they avoid it. Third, Science is very technical, meaning you're going to need a lot of training to even know what is going on.
This is a reality atheists have to accept, that what they consider an unproven theory of a higher being is more easily believed than hard, solid evidence.
For the second part, your analogy is a nice one. Allow me to use it to illustrate my point. If we take reason and logic to be a box, an open box, not a closed one. In this box are all the scientific truths and inventions and whatnot. Creativity in this sense is an unmovable object outside the box. We see it, and we decide we like it, and we want to have that object inside our box of reason and logic. In order to do so, someone has to approach that object with reason and logic (the very material is box is made of) and eventually, build the box up around that object. Then, we have a new theory, a new invention, a new innovation. That's how I see it works.
Religion doesn't exactly prevent creativity, rather, it restricts it because it is afraid of what creavtivity would do. It's like a reluctant mother with her child at the playground. She's afraid of the things at the place, because she is afraid her child would get hurt. What she doesn't realize is, that the child can learn from injuries and pain. Religion means well; it's just that we feel very restricted by it, and that is why we are unhappy with it. -
My mommy always say I very crever.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:No problem, you got it right. Hmm. That's a rare thing to happen.
-
IMHO, the deaths of so many during the French Revolution does not seem very reasonable.Originally posted by Phaze:Let's also not forget that the religiously dominiated Middle Ages is also referred to as the Dark Ages.
The Age of Enlightenment that came in the 17th and 18th century advocated Reason as the primary basis of authority. -
That's so true.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:The "isn't true" part can be very subjective, and I'm going to avoid that, because it would take a whole essay to say anything substantial. We would get bogged down into a metaphysics discussion on the nature of reality and our ability to understand it.
My personal view is that the universe is not only stranger than we know, it might very well be stranger than we can know. Our brains are designed to handle the universe at the scale in which we live. We have problems understanding the very big (interstellar distances) and the very small (quantum mechanics). We use tools like math to help us describe what's going on but we have no intuitive understanding of it. I do see some parallels with Buddhist concepts here though there are many other aspects that I reject.
So perhaps you can mentally replace the word 'true' with "the truth as far as we can determine through evidence and reason."
Hmm... did I just write a mini-essay? :p
The thing is though, you say this only because you are trying to be objective. You basically conceded that all religions are equally valid (of course I would say equally invalid). Most religions do not teach that all religions are equally valid. Most religions teach that their religion is the true religion. I disagree that those who approach religion tend to be redeemed (mostly because I'm not sure what redemption is). Can religion make people feel better? Sure. But as I mentioned before, I feel that truth (as much as can be determined by evidence and reason) is more important than comfort.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:The awful truth (irony, haha!) is that there are many out there who do not know what to do with their lives. Those who approach religion tend to be redeemed; this is a fact. Broken souls and hearts who approach fathers or monks or imams will tend to be healed through religion. Whether the god behind it all exists or not is a debate that has been going on for very long (We'll leave my beliefs out of this one, since I'm trying to be objective.)
If so many incompatible religions can achieve the same results, shouldn't we consider some other explanation for those results? I'm not saying that I have the answer. I'm saying that we should just admit we don't know yet and continue searching for the answer.
But that's irrelevant. The truth (as we can determine by evidence and science - damn it's getting tiring typing the whole thing each time) is absolute. It's not a matter of whether we like it or not. I don't like the truth that I can't fly. I don't like the truth that drinkings lots of Coke makes me fat. That doesn't mean I can disbelieve it.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:Not everyone has the tenacity and passion to search for the atheistic version of "truth". You have to understand that in this case, Science is the main instrument for revealing that truth, and Science is not a good friend of the people. Why? For one, it is elitist and arrogant. If you're not someone important, or if you don't have a good background, no one's going to take you seriously. Second, Science does not have the appeal of religion, where everyone is made to feel blessed and important. In fact, many are intimidated by Science, and perhaps, that is why they avoid it. Third, Science is very technical, meaning you're going to need a lot of training to even know what is going on.
Christians (and other religious people) recognize this as well. I often get these arguments from Christians:
"You may not believe in God, but God believes in you." - I think this was from Constantine (movie) :lol
"You don't think Hell exists now. But you will believe when you are burning in it."
"You simply don't want to face up to the fact that you will be punished for your sins. But you will be punished."
I don't understand why people accuse atheists for rejecting evidence of the supernatural. Why would I do that? It's precisely because I understand the truth is independant of whether I like it or not, that I accept all good evidence. And it has to be GOOD evidence. Keep an open mind but not so open that your brains fall out. I know that if something is true, I have to face the consequences regardless of whether I like it or not. I just paid my taxes. I don't like having to pay tax but I just can't believe I don't have to.
On a side note, the First Commandment should be re-written as "Thou shalt not mess with IRAS."
I agree that science can be technical and it is sometimes hard to understand. But it's the best tool for us to understand the universe in which we exist.
Isn't that why we are here debating in this forum? We want to understand why we believe what we believe. We don't want to believe something simply for the sake of belief. The fact we are able to engage in debate also means we are willing to question our own beliefs. Otherwise, that would be preaching. (I admit sometimes I sound like I'm preaching but honest - I don't intend to. :p )
We all have reasons for believing what we believe. Some Christians look at the world around them and see evidence of God in everything. That is their reason for belief. You have your reasons for being a Christian just as I have my reasons for being an atheist. Obviously, I feel my reasons are better than yours (or I would be a christian) and I am trying to convince you that your reasons for belief are not good reasons.
My view of creativity is that indeed we do make the box bigger - but from the inside not outside. Taking the box as the representation of our natural world, I don't believe there is an outside.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:This is a reality atheists have to accept, that what they consider an unproven theory of a higher being is more easily believed than hard, solid evidence.
For the second part, your analogy is a nice one. Allow me to use it to illustrate my point. If we take reason and logic to be a box, an open box, not a closed one. In this box are all the scientific truths and inventions and whatnot. Creativity in this sense is an unmovable object outside the box. We see it, and we decide we like it, and we want to have that object inside our box of reason and logic. In order to do so, someone has to approach that object with reason and logic (the very material is box is made of) and eventually, build the box up around that object. Then, we have a new theory, a new invention, a new innovation. That's how I see it works.
Religion doesn't exactly prevent creativity, rather, it restricts it because it is afraid of what creavtivity would do. It's like a reluctant mother with her child at the playground. She's afraid of the things at the place, because she is afraid her child would get hurt. What she doesn't realize is, that the child can learn from injuries and pain. Religion means well; it's just that we feel very restricted by it, and that is why we are unhappy with it. -
And those deaths were, in many ways, due to religious oppression. Or rather, oppression by the religious.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:IMHO, the deaths of so many during the French Revolution does not seem very reasonable.
The French Revolution (1789–1799) was a period of political and social upheaval in the political history of France and Europe as a whole, during which the French governmental structure, previously an absolute monarchy with feudal privileges for the aristocracy and Catholic clergy, underwent radical change to forms based on Enlightenment principles of democracy, citizenship, and inalienable rights.
You could argue that it was not true religion - that it was religion used by men to achieve their own ends.
But that's my whole point. Since religion is not based on evidence, there's no way to determine if a religious claim is true or not.
And don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that if everyone becomes an atheist, wars will end, there will be peace on earth and goodwill towards men. We will still fight. We will still have wars. We will still fight over scarce resources. But at least we won't fight over religion. We won't kill people because of an ancient book. -
I invite you to skim through the article below which is an example of an ethical, secular world view.Originally posted by sillyme:It is true that we should grow in knowledge.
How do we come up standards of 'good' and 'bad' by logical reason without any moral, cultural and ethical bias? As you said, science is neither good nor bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
I can derive a set of ethics and values based on philosophical principles. But they are theselves value judgements and are not absolute.
If you are looking for an absolute standard of ethics, I don't have an answer for that, and I don't think it exists.
Some people object to this idea and say, "that would mean there's no justice in the universe and people can do whatever they want! That's terrible."
My reply would be, "what makes you think there is justice in the universe?"
And I believe the only justice is what we create. The fact that we are conscious, thinking beings give us the opportunity to address those injustices. -
Indeed, we shall kill for Reason. (or some of them)Originally posted by Phaze:But at least we won't fight over religion. We won't kill people because of an ancient book.
There is method in this madness. -
x2Originally posted by Phaze:I invite you to skim through the article below which is an example of an ethical, secular world view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
I can derive a set of ethics and values based on philosophical principles. But they are theselves value judgements and are not absolute.
If you are looking for an absolute standard of ethics, I don't have an answer for that, and I don't think it exists.
Some people object to this idea and say, "that would mean there's no justice in the universe and people can do whatever they want! That's terrible."
My reply would be, "what makes you think there is justice in the universe?"
And I believe the only justice is what we create. The fact that we are conscious, thinking beings give us the opportunity to address those injustices.
Totally agree about the non-existence of absolute standard ethics. What is ethical to one might seem immoral to another. -
Thank you for the linkOriginally posted by Phaze:I invite you to skim through the article below which is an example of an ethical, secular world view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
I can derive a set of ethics and values based on philosophical principles. But they are theselves value judgements and are not absolute.
If you are looking for an absolute standard of ethics, I don't have an answer for that, and I don't think it exists.
Some people object to this idea and say, "that would mean there's no justice in the universe and people can do whatever they want! That's terrible."
My reply would be, "what makes you think there is justice in the universe?"
And I believe the only justice is what we create. The fact that we are conscious, thinking beings give us the opportunity to address those injustices.
I agree that it is difficult to reach a standard set of ethics and values. We can safely agree there are common ones. And to further discuss in detail would stray us from the topic.
Let us go back to the topic of identifying the contributions. Closely related to the problem of not able to agree to a universal ethics, values, etc., religion introduces the concepts of grace, mercy and forgiveness. This is one area religion has contributed. -
is not it obvious that human civilisation advancement is moved forward by science, medicine, technology, engineering
if you go and buy books of inventions you will realize that almost many things in your room, you building, your cars, your highway, your roads, you cable tv, your pen, your fan, aeroplane.
However, i think people dun care about origin of things, they mainly just do two things.
just know your work, appreciate your work so that you can earn money and wiht money you just buy things and use them. you dun bother to know who invent it and how it was made. As such, people do not realize that science and other related disciplnes is actually a very fundamental force of civilization. -
It is very dangerous to read the bible so literally all the time. For the uninformed, the bible is not one continuous piece of writing. It is made up of 73 'books', written by different authors at different times to different audiences. Some of these books are biographies, some are letters; others are poems, songs, laws etc. The bible is a complex collection of writings and one needs to interpret them properly, having in mind the context and audience whom the author was addressing. For the record, Christianity does not teach the amputation of limbs for wrong doing.Originally posted by Phaze:... Religion in most cases fails as a moral compass as well.
In Mark 9:43, "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."
This is moral?
And this is just one example. There are many far worse.
But coming back to the original topic, my view is that science and religion have each made important contributions to mankind and both have also been mis-used to devastating efffects. Because of scientific advances, I can now hope to live to 70/80 years on average, I can communicate with a friend half way across the world with the press of a few buttons, I have clean drinking water and can eat meat every day. Religion does not provide these things but it never sought to do so.
Instead, religion (Christianity in my case) has taught me about the existence of an afterlife; it has given hope to prisoners of war living in the most wretched of circumstances, enabling them to survive when they should logically have died, it has given hope to many a wayward youth who were saved from a lifetime of crime and waste. When I holidayed in Greece, the guide told us that it was religion (Greece is 90% eastern orthodox) which held the nation together during their darkest moments (Turkish occupation etc). Science does not help in such situations, but it was never meant to be put to such uses.
So the bottomline is that it is pointless to try to determine whether science or religion have made greater contributions to mankind. Both of them operate in different 'spaces' and strive to achieve different objectives. -
i think that..
religion provides a moral framework for people to coexist within a particular society, bringing forth culture and social character to the people. both for people who is for this religion or against this religion. either sides will take into their own responsibility to build a set of moral values in themselves to supersede the original religious system.
it is good to a certain extent, on a general term. we need it. as to science. -
Sorry, but an athiest who believes in reason is still bound to the law of faith. At the end of the day he still relies on some guiding priciple that directs his thoughts and actions to this concept of "right and wrong".
The true superman, the person truly free of any systems, the real athiest is the one who has the power to determine will and reason by himself and as he sees fit, not bound to this thing called "common sense and logic" that does not even exist at all.
"Reason and Logic" is just modern religon for those who don't want to believe in religon but do not want to abandon their superstition entirely, and they cover it up with excuses like science and humanism... but all things that we currently are are nothing but self-replicating patterns set up in our genetic code, and to be truly free we must be free from these instincts that we known as a desire for "reason and logic".
There is no morality, no right and wrong nor reason and logic in a Godless universe. The only thing that makes way is power and the strongest will, and there is no right or wrong ways, just stronger ways and systems.
The humanist who thinks he can rely on reason and logic as a worldview is little different from those people of faith. They are not true or free to their own supposed concepts of freedom.