No offense, dude, but that’s nuts. You (and Jaki, apparently) are saying that until two thousand years ago, nothing scientific occurred? If that were true, Jesus would have been born in a cave, without controlled fire, without medicines, without wine. No one would know what animals and veggies were safe to eat or which herb would cure nausea. For thousands upon thousands of years, people developed and used science. They observed. They hypothesized (e.g., draw a deer, maybe a deer will come). They experimented, tried X (e.g., draw a deer, see a deer) - did it work? Could it be replicated? They tried Y (draw a deer when the weather gets warmer) - did it work better? Worse? Did it hurt? Did it help? And they made conclusions based on the observations and experiments (draw a deer in Spring, see a deer, so drawing deer in Spring must bring deer). The scientific method was in use long before it was given a name, and it was actively applied as people learned and improved their lives. The Chinese invented lots of things - like noodles, paper and explosives - way before Christ was born. The Egyptians built the pyramids in line with the stars 2,500 years BC. As was Stonehenge properly aligned.
Are you saying none of that occurred because of science? That’s just crazy talk. The learning curve has simply sped up in the last couple thousand years.
And yes, religion may have played a part, but Christianity as the “origin” of science? No way. The truth is this: the more we learn through science, the less we need to explain through religion. We no longer believe, for example, that illness is caused by bad spirits or that thunder means the gods are angry. We are still on the scientific journey, which began tens of thousands of years ago, so religion is still necessary to some.
Sorry, but that’s simply preposterous. You can build a shelter – even a sophisticated one – without knowledge of science. You can learn how to build fire without any knowledge of the scientific method, and you can even discover that fermented grape juice makes a lovely beverage without knowing diddly squat about microbiology.
There were many WONDERFUL discoveries and advances that occurred long before the advent of modern science. That doesn’t mean that the people of those times understood the scientific method, much less practiced it. We can explain many of them in scientific terms, but the people who advanced these discoveries didn’t need to know any formal science in order to accomplish their great feats.
BTW, I can tell that you didn’t actually read Jaki’s article. He did not date modern science to the time of Jesus, two thousand years ago. Rather, he pointed out that modern science was born in Western Europe, centuries after the birth of Jesus. Unfortunately, I’ve long known that many folks here adopt a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach whenever somebody says something that’s even remotely positive about religion.
It certainly took more science than religion to do those things. Again, science came out of religion only because most were religious at that time, and religion just couldn’t do the job.
True or not, that has no bearing on your statement. It might explain the shitty attitude some atheists have toward religion, but not the existence of the group “atheists”. Once upon a time there was a room full of people who all believed in religion…one guy says, “Hey, that makes no sense to me. I’m not one of them. I believe differently, so I’ll call myself an atheist.” The atheist is the one who created the group of one out of nothing. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, nor that religion was a necessary condition, but that’s as far as it goes.
Once again, none of that is science. You can discover that papyrus makes for good writing material, but that doesn’t mean that you’ve used the scientific method. You can build a great many things, but that’s not science in any rigorous sense of the term.
It’s interesting that you mentioned ancient Egypt. As the article in questions says, “Although a talent for science was certainly present in the ancient world (for example in the design and construction of the Egyptian pyramids), nevertheless the philosophical and psychological climate was hostile to a self-sustaining scientific process. Thus science suffered still-births in the cultures of ancient China, India, Egypt and Babylonia. It also failed to come to fruition among the Maya, Incas and Aztecs of the Americas. Even though ancient Greece came closer to achieving a continuous scientific enterprise than any other ancient culture, science was not born there either. Science did not come to birth among the medieval Muslim heirs to Aristotle.”
Building pyramids is not science. Making observations about the stars is not science either. The ability to do so demonstrates a useful talent for science, but it is not science in any rigorous sense of the term. That is precisely why scholars emphasize the scientific method – to distinguish it from the useful but less rigorous methods that people used in times past.
There you go again. ONCE AGAIN, your objection would have merit if SOMEBODY had claimed that science was useless, or that we should replace science with religion. Nobody said such a thing though, nor did anyone even remotely hint at it. That is why I’m disappointed that you keep erecting these strawmen.
An unsubstantiated assertion on your part, and it’s completely at odds with what Templeton Prize laureate historian Stanley Jaki says on that matter. Since Jaki is a historian of science, and since he actually substantiates his claims, I give more credence to what he says.
Umm… wow. Do you really nihilipilificate all the good that religion has done? The education, the arts, the preservation and development of knowledge, the maintenance of law, its work to the preservation of order, and so much more? It’s easy to see something that’s wrong; it’s not so easy to see the things that are right because you expect them.
Further, are you mistaking the misdeeds of religion (e.g. the Inquisition) with religion being co-opted by temporal rulers / agents for their own gains (e.g. the Crusades, Northern Ireland, Israel / Palestine, Nigeria)?
The hell it is. Let’s not pretend that it is simply a case of “I don’t believe in your religion, so I’m leaving.” “Oakly doakly, good buddy-have a nice life!” throughout history. If relationships didn’t develop among the similarly persecuted, they probably couldn’t survive.
Your confusing acceptance of one group with the formation of that group. Here is your original statement:
Think basic set theory. A group that is defined by believing in God does not include those who believe there is no God. So once an individual raises his hand and says he believes there is no God (or the weaker strain, doesn’t believe in God), he removes himself from that group (set).
Think religious persecution of those that are different. Think finding those of a like mind to hide you from religious persecution. Think of being an atheist without a support group when religionists manipulate the law to take from you and give to them.
Think real.
Religion has done a very useful thing that is often overlooked. For centuries it has channeled the energies of a set of power hungry people who are either dishonest or naive enough to claim to actually take instructions from a super powerful being only they can talk too. Sometimes they do good, sometimes they do evil. But what alternative occupation do we have for them? We really don’t want them in politics and there’s not much of a market for imaginary used cars.