+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.ly)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.ly/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://sinister.ly/Forum-The-Lounge)
+---- Forum: Serious Discussion (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Serious-Discussion)
+---- Thread: Science vs. religion (/Thread-Science-vs-religion)
Pages:
1
2
Science vs. religion - Inori - 06-19-2017
It's no secret that I'm not big on the idea of religion in the sense that I don't subscribe to anything of the sort, but if that's what you choose to believe, so be it, as long as you don't make that decision for other people. That said, I'm a proponent of scientific advancement and exploration, and I like to bring up this anecdote when debating things like this.
A family brought in a prayer book to an auction house in London which had been an heirloom in France for 70 years, to get it appraised and analysed because of some odd Greek script and the occasional diagram that went beyond the margins of the pages. This prayer book was later sold at auction for over $2 million USD, because 9 years of intensive research revealed that the Greek lettering and diagrams belonged to Archimedes, potentially the most brilliant mind from antiquity to the golden age of science.
As it was later discovered, Archimedes wrote not one, but two essays on papyrus over 2,200 years ago: one on the fundamentals of calculus (which wouldn't be rediscovered by mathematicians for several centuries) and one on the concept of infinity (which was more advanced than anyone ever anticipated). This papyrus manuscript was copied to parchment at some intermediate time between the original writing and the following event, probably saving the absolute destruction of the text in the burning of the Library of Alexandria.
Roughly 700 years ago, a monk in an undetermined location needed new parchment for a prayer book. Seemingly without rhyme or reason, he selected the only surviving copy of Archimedes' work off of a shelf, cut the pages in half, rotated them, and scraped the ink off the surface. Forward 600 years, and Johan Ludwig Heiberg, a Danish philologist, discovered it in a library in Constantinople. After bringing it to the attention of the international community, the book was lost again until sold at auction.
My point about Archimedes' lost works, and the burning of Alexandria, for that matter, is I believe that religion impedes progress. How many hundreds of years ahead would we be if calculus had been brought to fruition over 200 years before Isaac Newton, instead of being turned into a smudged prayer book? Or had Alexandria not been razed because Julius Caesar and Emperor Aurelian were pricks, ultimately attributed to religious ideals?
Source: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/prayer-archimedes
RE: Science vs. religion - Blink - 06-19-2017
@CC.py this is perfect for you.
RE: Science vs. religion - Shinoa - 06-19-2017
Some religions actually work well with science, for example Judaism. On the outside there appear to be many contradictions, such as evolution and the age of the earth; however, they truly aren't contradictions at all. Someone who truly knows Judaism well would know that many writings suggest that Humans looked different in the earliest of bible times, and that the earth existing for 5-6 thousand years is metaphorical rather than literal.
One of the biggest and most well known Rabbis (Jewish priests/teachers) of the middle ages is Maimonides. Despite him being a very very religious man, he studied/knew physics(whatever physics there was at the time), math, philosophy, medicine, etc quite well. He even said things such as "Consequently he who wishes to attain to human perfection, must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics" and "You must accept the truth from whatever source it comes". Keep in mind this guy died in 1204.
While I agree that religion has held back progress and science, I just wanted to say that turning one down one without understanding both is wrong. This applies to both people of science and people of religion.
@Ender I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
RE: Science vs. religion - Ecks - 06-19-2017
The largest scientific institution in the world just so happens to be the Vatican and the current pope was a scientist (don't remember which field).
The silent majority within the religious fields do not fight against science, just like the silent majority today don't speak up against things like SJWs, We only hear from the very loud and obnoxious few and sadly they ruin everything.
I was raised Catholic, I have studied many religious texts and found religion just was not meant for me, I do not however say I am an Atheist, due to them more or less becoming their own religion, I am irreligious, but many advancements come from religious sources.
Look at Islam in it's past, look at Einstein, it is sad that today people have become so backwards.
RE: Science vs. religion - Defeat - 06-19-2017
I've written multiple papers on this in school and I'm sorry, but religion does not impede science for the most part. Can we just take a look at genetics for example ? Even today, the father of gene therapy (as of now) is a pretty engaged Catholic isn't he ?
RE: Science vs. religion - Anime! - 06-20-2017
(06-19-2017, 07:15 PM)Inori Wrote: My point about Archimedes' lost works, and the burning of Alexandria, for that matter, is I believe that religion impedes progress. How many hundreds of years ahead would we be if calculus had been brought to fruition over 200 years before Isaac Newton, instead of being turned into a smudged prayer book?
I don't understand why you consider "impeding progress" as a symptom of religion, and not that of authoritarian rule. You can look at some of the most secular states in history and find the exact same impediment of progress. Take the USSR for example. Almost all aspects of society deteriorated not because of religion, but because of the corrupt communist government that participated in progressive secular activities such as purges, expulsions, forced displacements, imprisonment in labor camps, manufactured famines, and mass killings.
Don't want to look to the past for examples? No problem! We just spoke about the USSR, so why not discuss current day Russia? While not quite as "authoritarian" as the USSR, Vladimir Putin has made it clear in recent years that he intends to maintain power and will silence anyone who challenges him. Political assassinations, throwing journalists in prison, and state controlled media are a normal part of life in Russia today, and religion has absolutely nothing to do with it. If Russia isn't an extreme enough example, take North Korea. For many of the same reasons, I doubt you can argue that they are the pinnacle of progress in this world.
My point is, the type of regressive force that you attribute to religion, I believe should be attributed to authoritarian like organizations in which the people in power will do whatever it takes to stay in power. Sure, many religious organizations have attempted to halt the flow of progress, but to blame that on religion itself isn't looking deep enough, as we see the exact same behavior in those who are not religious at all.
I also find it strange that you have no problem bringing up how a monk destroyed a piece of scientific literature 700 years ago, meanwhile ignoring the scientific climate of the time. 700 years ago, at the exact same time in which that monk lived, Islam was experiencing a golden age of scientific, economic, and cultural advancement. For nearly 500 years from the 8th century to the 13th, Islamic scholars were the most scientifically literate people in the world, and you decide to bring up an example of one religious individual who decided to destroy scientific literature. It makes me think that you came to a conclusion first, and then went to find evidence to confirm that conclusion, rather than looking at the evidence first and then drawing a conclusion based on what you find.
CC.py Wrote:Some religions actually work well with science, for example Judaism. On the outside there appear to be many contradictions, such as evolution and the age of the earth; however, they truly aren't contradictions at all. Someone who truly knows Judaism well would know that many writings suggest that Humans looked different in the earliest of bible times, and that the earth existing for 5-6 thousand years is metaphorical rather than literal.
Implying that one religion has more of an affinity for science than another is ridiculous IMO. Brilliant scientists have come from all over the world and from all different types of religions.
Sure, at different times in human history, certain religions have had more scientific tolerance and advancement than others. But we have seen almost all major religions push scientific progress forward at one point, and backward the next. So why relate scientific affinity with religion if religion is a variable that remains constant?
In my opinion, the main factor that determines a state's affinity for Science is wealth. And when I say wealth, I mean collective wealth, not wealth concentrated in the most powerful people of that state. To use your example of Judaism... where are most Jewish scientists conducting their research? In Israel, by far the most powerful state in that region. Due to their wealth and power, Israel has the sufficient resources to conduct scientific studies that will lead to great advancements. But if we look at their neighbor next door, Palestine, the exact opposite can be said. Palestine, a majority Muslim state, is also one of the poorest in the world. They do NOT have the resources to invest in science, so of course their belief and commitment to science is practically non-existent when compared to Israel. And guess what, the same goes for most of the majority Muslim countries in the region, and the world. But when we look at the richest countries in the middle east, for example Kuwait or the UAE, who are also majority Muslim, what do we find? A prosperous society that has embraced science and technology. So if religion were truly the cause of Scientific intolerance, why do we see Muslim majority states that contradict each other down the line of collective wealth?
Ecks Wrote:Look at Islam in it's past, look at Einstein, it is sad that today people have become so backwards.
Thank you, at least someone has done their research. It's like these people never took History in high school... many of the most important scientific discoveries ever were possible due to organized religions and/or religious people.
RE: Science vs. religion - Shinoa - 06-20-2017
@Anime! There are many religions that can and do work with science; however, some don't. I just gave the example of Judaism because thats the religion I know most about and can accuratly say how it doesnt conflict with science.
RE: Science vs. religion - Anime! - 06-20-2017
(06-20-2017, 12:39 AM)CC.py Wrote: @Anime! There are many religions that can and do work with science; however, some don't. I just gave the example of Judaism because thats the religion I know most about and can accuratly say how it doesnt conflict with science.
Would you mind providing examples of some of the religions you believe don't inherently work with science? Just to clarify?
RE: Science vs. religion - Shinoa - 06-20-2017
(06-20-2017, 12:43 AM)Anime! Wrote: Would you mind providing examples of some of the religions you believe don't inherently work with science? Just to clarify?
Well Mormonism for one. They believe some crazy things, such as the sun borrows its light from the star Kolob
RE: Science vs. religion - Blink - 06-20-2017
(06-20-2017, 12:50 AM)CC.py Wrote:(06-20-2017, 12:43 AM)Anime! Wrote: Would you mind providing examples of some of the religions you believe don't inherently work with science? Just to clarify?
Well Mormonism for one. They believe some crazy things, such as the sun borrows its light from the star Kolob
Crazy is a subjective term