You must log in or register to comment.
This is an interesting one, and I feel like there are many nuanced conversations to be had about this. I talk mostly about Christianity below, because that is what I have most experience with.
For one, most of the Christian churches that founded universities are considered rather theologically liberal now, sometimes to the point where its adherents question the basis of what I would consider Christianity. While those that haven’t are usually rather conservative. Interestingly, it is conservative churches that are growing right now, while liberal ones appear to be shrinking.
I have personally seen conservative Christians claim that not just religion, but specifically Christianity invented science, and also presuppose that modern science will come round to their belief in an approximately 6000 year old Earth eventually. Whenever scientists stop rejecting the obvious truth. These conservative Christians seem to expect science to only ever confirm their ideas, and if it doesn’t, the science is being read wrong. I can’t claim they aren’t religious, and I can’t claim this isn’t their religion.
But I do acknowledge that many religions have a history promoting scientific thought, that it can be compatible. Religious institutions encouraged people to value knowledge, and used to be a major source of funding to the sciences. From what I’ve heard, religion technically isn’t about belief at all, but ritual and community. I think those are both positive things that we don’t see as much in our society today.
I think there is something in the history of science greater at play than just religion by itself, but that religion may play a role in. The question becomes then: how crucial a role?
The only reason we have the Emancipation Proclamation is because of institutionalized slavery
How come you get upvotes and op gets downs?
Because OP used bad logic to promote an idea and I deftly satirized that by using the same bad logic in a way which clearly and humorously shows it to be fallacious
Oh
Well exactly. The only reason we have vaccines is because of disease.
One of the earliest documented cases of variolation involved a Buddhist nun (bhikkhuni) between 1022 and 1063 CE. She ground smallpox scabs into a fine powder and administered it through the nostrils of an uninfected person to promote immunity.
Isolated moments of reason are not due to institutions of unreason. Rather, they are in spite of them.
Look at science history for even one second, and you will see that prior to the 20th century nearly every scientific advance made was by people in religious institutions. Because those were the only ones who had the education, time and curiosity available.
What does that have to do with religion
Buddism, which is an agnostic religion, does currently and historically promote science And scholar work.
They might literally be the only religion to do this.
With the exception of the modern TST people which are also agnostic.
Maybe if you guys hadn’t pooped in the bathwater for centuries it might be worth saving. But as usual it’s everyone else’s fault, isn’t it.
You might need to check your reading comprehension.
Right? Who saves bathtubs?
Also speaking for the US, aspects of the civil rights movement and other positive political movements have at times been critically dependent on Religious organization… and I have no interests in defending Organized Religion, I don’t consider myself Religious but the reality is much more complex than “Religion dumb Science smart”.
For one, the concept of evolution and then genetics absolutely supercharged racism and honestly Science had little capability to mitigate it. The 20th century may have gone very differently if Scientific leaders had immediately resoundingly rejected eugenics at an ideological level rather than attempt to differentiate what they studied from "race ““science”” in the details. In otherwords, Science was incapable of equipping the followers of its ideology with the systematic tools to resist fascism and oppression whereas you can easily demonstrate various different Religious groups that were instrumental in resisting fascism and oppression (and plenty more that weren’t, I am not defending that awful batting average at all).
The reality or unreality of Religion isn’t the point, from a Scientific perspective Religion is relevant because people imbue it with belief and that should be respected for the reality that creates, the point isn’t that God exists or doesn’t honestly I think no question could be more boring to a true follower of Science who would know such questions by definition cannot be answered via the Scientific Method. A true Scientist is also driven by a love for the universe that is around them, and ultimately that isn’t too different than someone who is truly Religious at the core of the human experience of it.
Organized Religions are always two things, the Religion itself and the political structure of the Religion and in many cases those political structures can be very hostile to Science, but I do not believe inherently so and I do not believe it is a lack of Scientific thinking that allows the political structures of Religion to become hostile towards Science since Science cannot even prevent the internal structures it is built upon from becoming hostile towards itself.
It is funny that the more you talk about “Science” and the more you talk about “Religion” the more universally relevant yet irrelevant the words become, the important stuff always escapes a single word like that…
Science is for things we can prove, religion is for things we want to believe.
Why not use science when possible and religion when needed?
Everyone is free to believe in the funny old man controlling us and still accept that atoms exist.
These things are not mutually exclusive. And if they are to you, that’s probably because you’re a dick about it.
Not to get too reddit athiest about it, but the main problem I’d have with even innocent spiritualism is that it’s a bad habit, basically. If somebody believes something that isn’t empirical, you can’t use empiricism to bring them out of that pit. And the more they train that muscle, the stronger it is, you know?
It creates a bunch of mental sweater-snags that either prevent people from believing obviously true things, or that allow them to be yoinked by snake oil salesmen into wackier and wackier positions.
I empathize with that argument because it is reminiscent of family, but I still think some people need spirituality for their mental health. Turns out, when you think the world is less chaotic and more sorted out, it’s less exhausting to think about.
I get that it’s dangerous but especially in territories stricken with poverty you get swaths of people turning to religion, and I genuinely believe that’s because everyone wants to cling to something. And at some point I really do believe to live and let live. Specifically, when we don’t know for certain, why not let people speculate?
I think that’s a little bit like flirting with cigarettes because they can help you deal with stress. Which, I agree people will do, and quitting cold turkey isn’t a simple matter either, but should they do it? Like, morally? I still think it’s an unambiguous no.
That said, some friend of mine being really into horoscopes or whatever isn’t really at the top of my world problems to-do list. So long as they’re not getting sucked into any flat earth alt-right pipelines, it’s probably not worth the effort.
Oh actually, one more thing. This here:
Turns out, when you think the world is less chaotic and more sorted out, it’s less exhausting to think about.
This is true, and it’s one of the main factors that drives MAGA. Outside of the psycho-sexual one, anyway.
Anxiety will drive people toward simple, actionable answers, whether they’re correct or not, because there’s comfort in thinking you know why your life sucks. It could be God’s plan, it could be that brown people are ruining the country; it’s magical thinking that doesn’t need to make any sense, it just needs to soothe—not unlike a cigarette.
Not to imply that all religious people are MAGA. I know there are some good natured folks out there.
yes, but satanism specifically
Science is only antithetical to religion if you define religion as only “blind superstition” or science as more than “a system of identifying expected outcomes of experiments”.
LOL, “anthetical”
Religious people (especially monotheistic religions, not sure about pantheistic ones like Hinduism) have more reason to study science than non religious people. Everyone can get practical value from studying the world, but religious people also study science to learn more about God.
Science doesn’t touch any “why” questions at all so you’re perfectly free to believe in some god who made things be the way they are. Now some of the shit in the bible though…
