Is religion harmful to society?

[chilehed]

It was also believed true by Anaxagoras, Democritus, Epicurus, etc, without the requirement for any gods. Religion, christian or otherwise, isn't required for the view that the universe behaves according to the dictates of assumed natural laws.

The part you're missing is that it's about the convergence of three ideas: not only that the universe works accoding to laws that can be understood by human reason, but that it does so because a rational god made it so and that something of the nature of God is manifest in creation such that learning about the universe can serve to illuminate what can be known about the nature of God.

[ughaibu]

I've just pointed out that you're incorrect, about this. No god is needed and no laws are needed.

[InfiniteNow]

not only that the universe works accoding to laws that can be understood by human reason, but that it does so because a rational god made it so and that something of the nature of God is manifest in creation such that learning about the universe can serve to illuminate what can be known about the nature of God.

 

Tell us, since rationality seems to be a prominent part (maybe even the crux) of your presentation, precisely what rational information does adding an assumed and unprovalble higher power (God) provide to our collective inquiry into the universe?

 

 

 

[REASON]

There's a huge popular mythology that's grown up about exactly what happened and why. Galileo wasn't the first person to propose a heliocentric model. Copernicus had come to the same conclusion, and, as I pointed out in my post above, in 1533 Pope Clement VII received his lectures on the subject with approval (afeter which he was encouraged to publish them). So when Galileo came along 60 years later with the same conclusion it was old news.

 

Well if it was old news, than it shouldn't have been so controversial?

 

 

There's also a huge poular mythology about the inquisitions, but you're close to the right answer. Galileo went beyond teaching heliocentrism as a predictive tool, he began to claim that it actully reflected reality. But the evidence available at the time was insufficient to warrant abandoning the belief that the Ptolemaic system, which was adequately predictive and which also agreed with the accepted understanding of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, was not the way the universe actually worked. Cardinal Bellamine told Galileo in 1615 that if he could provide sufficient proof that the heliocentric model reflected actual reality (rather than merely being a good predictive tool) then the Church would look at it and reconsider its position, but otherwise there was no reason to rock the boat. And yet not only did Galileo continue to publicly and loudly insist on teaching that his model reflected reality, he apparently began to claim that Sacred Scripture itself (not merely the accepted and common understanding of it) was in error. The first rocked the boat hard without having sufficient evidence to do so, and the second was outright heresy.

 

This statement only reinforces my opinion. How dare anyone suggest that the current biblical understanding of the universe is incorrect. How dare they assert their theories in public as being reality. How dare anyone rock the boat. The truth is, although we now understand that the universe is acentric, Galileo's observations at the time in support of the heliocentric model were an advancement to accepted theory, and provided a more rational explanation for the movement of planets, moons and comets. This was flatly rejected by the church hierarchy, which in retrospect, was hardly a rational response.

 

In my opinion, it is nothing more than spin to suggest that the reason the church rejected Galileo's findings were because he didn't present enough clear evidence to support his theories. They were rejected because they were in conflict with scripture, particularly Psalms and Chronicals, which established that the Earth was fixed and immovable. The geocentric model was accepted because it was consistent with that teaching. Scientific theories having the potential of undermining the scriptures were readily deemed heretical at the time, and often still are today.

 

According to Wiki:

 

• Galileo was required to recant his heliocentric ideas; the idea that the Sun is stationary was condemned as "formally heretical." However, while there is no doubt that Pope Urban VIII and the vast majority of Church officials did not believe in heliocentrism, heliocentrism was never formally or officially condemned by the Catholic Church, except insofar as it held (for instance, in the formal condemnation of Galileo) that "The proposition that the sun is in the center of the world and immovable from its place is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical; because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scriptures", and the converse as to the Sun's not revolving around the Earth.[61]
  
• He was ordered imprisoned; the sentence was later commuted to house arrest.
  
• His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.

 

 

Galileo's letter to Castelli was presented to inquisitions twice as evidence of heresy, but both times the charges were dismissed. Apparently there had been some dissembling in the charges made against him, but when the actual texts of the letter was evaluated nothing was found to substansiate the charges.

 

Then why was he senenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life? Why was his work forbidden? Would you consider this a rational judgement?

 

 

Galileo created his own problem by his lack of prudence, and the predictable result was that patience with him was lost and he was told to shut up about it. Nothing at all would have happened to him if he had been more circumspect.

 

I find it interesting, and very insightful actually, that you have found a way to turn this around and suggest that this was all Galileo's fault. Do you even realize that you are essentially suggesting that he was imprisoned because he wasn't being a very good team player? Huh!

 

 

And in retrospect, given that we now understand the universe to be acentric (rather, that any center it may have lies outside of 4-d spacetime), it seems a bit odd that people today fault the Church for being resistant to the claim that scientific observation had determined that heliocentricity reflects actual reality.

 

Again, the church didn't reject his findings because they were inconsistent with a more advanced acentric understanding. They were rejected because they were inconsistent with the church approved geocentric model, which was actually less advanced as we now so easily understand. This type of control of discourse is where religious hinderence becomes appearent though, and doesn't reflect well on your assertion that the church favors rational explanations for the natural world.

 

 

I’m not terribly familiar with that topic [Library of Alexandria]. My understanding is that, of the four times the libraries were attacked, only one had anything to do with Christians and it’s not clear that any of the libraries were destroyed at that time. The objects targeted for destruction were the pagan temples and religious articles, and the motive was not any animus against scientific knowledge. It's already been pointed out that Christendom had no problem with absorbing the scientific discoveries of other cultures.

 

Well I'm not trying to suggest that Christianity is the only form of religion that has attempted to subvert information, often scientific information, that is contrary to religious teaching. As you appear to agree, the objects targeted were pagan temples, and the library was targeted. The amount of information lost, considering the tremendous difficulty in generating copies, was a huge setback to the scientific world, and I would consider that harmful to society.

 

 

Evolutionary theory: The objections are twofold. First, that it conflicts with what (among Young Earth Creationists) is the common understanding of Sacred Scripture. Second, that it’s bad science! That’s really important here – the fact that the objection is that it’s bad science proves that the motive isn’t an aversion to science. Again, what is relevant here isn’t whether or not they are correct in their assessment of the scientific merit of the theory, what’s relevant is what they believe about the merits of the theory.

 

Again you are confirming my opinions. Are Young Earth Creationists scientists? Who has made the determination that evolution is "bad science"? Certainly not the scientific community. Could it be those who subscribe to religious assertions? What you claim as relevant are beliefs over scientific merit. In other words, if people don't believe it, the science can't be worthy of merit. I suggest that the reason people don't believe evolution is because they are lacking knowledge and experience with it, and/or because, again, they are resistent to information that potentially undermines the scripture which they hold so dear.

 

 

Stem cell research and cloning: I’m not aware of a single Christian who is opposed to stem cell research, and there are no Christian denominations or advocacy groups that stand against it. Not one. What is resisted is embryonic stem cell research, and the motive is not an aversion to science. The objection is again twofold: 1.) The belief that it is morally illicit to engage in the creation of what is objectively a distinct human person, outside of the context of the marital act. 2.) The belief that is it morally illicit to destroy the life of an innocent human person in the pursuit of scientific research. You might object that such an embryo is not actually a human person and that there's nothing immoral about creating it in a petri dish, but once again that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. We’re discussing motives here, what’s relevant is what people believe.

 

Again this statement only reinforces my opinion. I said,

 

I tend to believe that throughout history, religion has only been tolerant of science when the information and products it generates are not in conflict with interpretations of the scripture. The scriptures have always been seen by religious leadership as superior to any scientific notions. And when religions have been in positions of power, it was not uncommon for scientific ideas to be rejected and condemned if they were considered threatening.

 

 

The biological nature of homosexuality: again, the objection is that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that there is a biological vector, and that it's bad science. What’s relevant is what they believe about the merits of the theory.

 

Again, :) who has determined that it is "bad science"? You're not helping your case with these statements.

 

 

Bruno was condemned as a heretic for his theological ideas, it had nothing to do with his believing in the Copernican model. If it did, they would have condemned Copernicus.

 

Oh, well I guess it was okay then that they burned him at the stake. How dare he have alternate theological ideas. :D Why then is he considered by some as the first martyr for science? But I guess it was determined by the church that he had nothing worthwhile to contribute to society. Again, you're not bolstering your claim very well.

 

 

I certainly can’t speak to your personal experience or perceptions.

 

And I would prefer you didn't. But I would say that this is the type of attitude I would like to experience more from religious proponents.

[The D.S.]

After reading the recent posts on this thread, I'm noticing us moving a tad off topic. I side with Reasons posts claiming that religions, have in the past and still in todays society, are hindering social and human progress in the world, over scientific, technological, and ethicakl advances.

 

We seem to be focusing on "past" effects of religion, such as the house arrest of Galileo and the burning of the libraries. True as they may be, let's focus on modern day religion and their effects on the world.

 

I think that I, as well as others, would agree upon this. Thanks!

 

p.s. The past does uphold the claim that relgion is detrimental to societies progress. History is absolutely full of instances of relgious prosecution and hinderance. So, the past is important to remember...it supports the current claims. :)

[Eggsactly]

p.s. The past does uphold the claim that relgion is detrimental to societies progress. History is absolutely full of instances of relgious prosecution and hinderance. So, the past is important to remember...it supports the current claims. :)

 

As I have been reading through this topic, I see that all of these arguments all have wonderful points and obvious flaws. However, I believe that this topic shouldn't be as biased as the statement above. The past shows many things, depending on what light you put it in. There will never be one truthful documentation of history, it will always be used to support the views of the person presenting it. Please don't say that the past will only 'support the current claims' as that is saying that all of history as had one viewpoint. Along with that, there are currently more than one claim here.

 

My opinion, in a nutshell, is that it all depends on your viewpoint. Is religion a hindrance to science? It depends all on your own personal beliefs. It's like the question of the egg and the chicken; it's subjective and you could go on arguing about it for days, weeks, months. It's what we've been been doing for decades and I believe it's detrimental to remember this.

 

I agreed with alot of Buffy's points, however. I also really loved her Art metaphor: I, at least, think it gave a good view on the whole subject.

[The D.S.]

True, this topic is subject to viewpoint. However, you will find instances of religious hinderance far more than you shall find instances where religion benefited man-kind. The past is littered with such notations and although my "opinion" is rather "biased" I have it that way for a very good reason.

 

I'm not concerned with past matters as much as I am with the current world situation. As Reason so delightfully put it, religion and science DO NOT go well together. Evolution, stem cells, global warming and other important matters are more than often scolded by religion and some (note that i said "some") of its followers.

 

Religion may very well provide its share of "good" deeds, however, it would also appear that it does a heck of a good job at annoying people, such as me :D because I'd like to see humanity escape such a barbaric time and get going in the world :)

[ughaibu]

Is religion a hindrance to science? It depends all on your own personal beliefs

What it primarily depends on is whether the religion is scriptural, does it have texts as it's ultimate authority. Scriptural religions are by their nature a hinderance to progress generally and science in particular. This shouldn't even be a matter of dispute, such religions are averse to any refutation of their claims and as their claims are from the past, such claims are by nature antagonistic to progress.

[The D.S.]

I would agree with ughaibu on that note.

[Buffy]

What it primarily depends on is whether the religion is scriptural, does it have texts as it's ultimate authority. Scriptural religions are by their nature a hinderance to progress generally and science in particular. This shouldn't even be a matter of dispute, such religions are averse to any refutation of their claims and as their claims are from the past, such claims are by nature antagonistic to progress.

 

You guys are *really* going to have to define the word "religion" here before you go any further.

 

If we can rattle Southtown's cage and get him to visit this thread, he'd tell you that the problem this argument exposes is the notion of an "Authority" that has sole license from God to interpret those scriptures. He'd tell you that the real religion is the scriptures themselves and *anyone* has the right to interpret them as strictly or as loosely as they want.

 

As a result, those who interpret the Bible very loosely will tell you there's no conflict whatsoever between the Bible and Science.

 

Obviously there are others who rail violently against this notion.

 

Is that the fault of the scriptures or of the people who think they have the God-given, sole right to determine what they mean?

 

There are no facts, only interpretations, :doh:

Buffy

[snoopy]

What it primarily depends on is whether the religion is scriptural, does it have texts as it's ultimate authority. Scriptural religions are by their nature a hinderance to progress generally and science in particular. This shouldn't even be a matter of dispute, such religions are averse to any refutation of their claims and as their claims are from the past, such claims are by nature antagonistic to progress.

 

 

You are right Religon does seem antagonistic when beliefs are held despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

Religon can also be a barrier to social progress not just merely technological or scientific progress.

 

Which I think at this stage in humanities progress is more important.

 

When humans can solve their differences without resorting to violence then that to me would be progression .

 

Peace :doh:

[ughaibu]

Buffy:

If the scriptures contain items of relevant interest, their reasonable interpretation won't be particularly contentious and differences of interpretation will exist at a certain level, as in the case of quantum mechanics. If the interpretation of the texts is an entirely personal matter, from the basics up, the texts are superfluous and there is no body of religion or religious thought. Southtown is an odd person to choose, in my opinion, as he believes that everything in the Bible is literally true, despite the absurdities that this belief commits him to.

[Buffy]

If the scriptures contain items of relevant interest, their reasonable interpretation won't be particularly contentious and differences of interpretation will exist at a certain level, as in the case of quantum mechanics. If the interpretation of the texts is an entirely personal matter, from the basics up, the texts are superfluous and there is no body of religion or religious thought.

In theory maybe, but what has always fascinated me is that so many people and *organizations* can and *do* have such contentious disagreements about what it says!

 

And to the point where there are so many different contentious interpretations that there is a plethora for each individual to make...wait for it...a *personal* decision about which one to choose!

 

Southtown is an odd person to choose, in my opinion, as he believes that everything in the Bible is literally true, despite the absurdities that this belief commits him to.

I find Southtown's views refreshing *because* of the fact that he's come to this same conclusion about personal interpretation *and* his interpretation is fundamentalist.

 

Just goes to show you that the two views are actually entirely consistent! :doh:

 

Doctor, Doctor lookin' sad, Strangest case I ever had, :doh:

Buffy

[ughaibu]

In theory maybe, but what has always fascinated me is that so many people and *organizations* can and *do* have such contentious disagreements about what it says!

 

And to the point where there are so many different contentious interpretations that there is a plethora for each individual to make...wait for it...a *personal* decision about which one to choose!

That's all true enough, but regardless of one's interpretation, if that interpretation is such that it awards ultimate authority to the texts, the problem of impeding progress still arises. Unless one's interpretation doesn't involve any of the relevant concerns, such as ethics, scientific view, etc, or unless one considers one's religious views to be quite separate from the practicality of those concerns.

[Qfwfq]

For one thing, there are many misconceptions about the role of the Catholic Church in the cosmological debate. The real opponents of Aristarchus Copernicus were the staunchest peripatetics. When Galileo had them cornered in, their last resort was to cite two passages of the Scriptures aginst him. When Galileo argued that these weren't to be taken literally, as supporting geocentrism, they accused him of violating the Council of Trent agreements by taking the liberty of interpreting the Scriptures without having the authority to do so.

 

He therefore sought support of his hermeneutic opinion but Cardinal Bellarmino, who was one of the staunch peripatetics, got in his way. When the dialogue was finally published, Bellarmino persuaded Pope Urban VIII that Galileo had deceived him in order to be authorized. Urban was an old buddy of Galileo's and was so persuaded by the Cardinal that he took it very personally, feeling betrayed by a friend. The records of the trial still exist in the Vatican vaults and are mainly about whether Galileo had avoided informing the Pope of a decree issued some years previously by Bellarmino.

 

Jos 10:12 "Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon." (tunc locutus est Iosue Domino in die qua tradidit Amorreum in conspectu filiorum Israhel dixitque coram eis sol contra Gabaon ne movearis et luna contra vallem Ahialon; in Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D.)

 

Jos 10:13 "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." (steteruntque sol et luna donec ulcisceretur se gens de inimicis suis nonne scriptum est hoc in libro Iustorum stetit itaque sol in medio caeli et non festinavit occumbere spatio unius diei; in JLV)

 

Ecc 1:5 "The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose." (oritur sol et occidit et ad locum suum revertitur ibique renascens; in JLV)

 

Now don't these verses just prove that Planet Earth doesn't move? :D

[Buffy]

That's all true enough, but regardless of one's interpretation, if that interpretation is such that it awards ultimate authority to the texts, the problem of impeding progress still arises. Unless one's interpretation doesn't involve any of the relevant concerns, such as ethics, scientific view, etc, or unless one considers one's religious views to be quite separate from the practicality of those concerns.

I don't disagree with this at all, I just point out the fact that what you've said is exactly the point: its all about the interpretation, and not really the texts themselves.

 

Its like guns or drugs: its all about who is doing the shooting and why....

 

Societies need to have one illness which becomes identified with evil, and attaches blame to its "victims," :D

Buffy

[REASON]

.....its all about the interpretation, and not really the texts themselves.

 

Okay, so is there any way to define what interpretations can be deemed harmful to society vs iterpretations that are benign?

 

And does it matter the nature of interpretation if the interpretors aren't in positions of power?