I’m agreeing with you here. Perhaps **JThunder **should define for us what exactly he thinks “science” is. I was going mostly by the scientific method, which is clearly science, but I’ll provide this non-religious definition:
sci·ence (sns) n.
1.
a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I’ve got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
Cite. My point stands. People have been amassing information via science for tens of thousands of years. They did not start over from scratch every time a civilization changed. They built and improved on what they knew, through science. Your argument, JThunder, that a person could just build a shelter or find something to eat, or discover papyrus, without first observation, experimentation and results analysis (science) is specious at best.
And to head off Kozmik:
ar·chi·tec·ture (ärk-tkchr)
n.
The art and science of designing and erecting buildings. Cite.
In each one of your examples, worship of a god was replaced with worship of the State, not atheism. And you know it, because it’s been pointed out every single time you bring it up.
The State didn’t want any divided loyalties to get in the way of allegiance to the State, so those countries officially became atheistic. They didn’t start out atheist and form a government around that concept.
Upon seeing the thread title, my mind immediately leapt to the “What have the Romans ever done for us?” scene from Life of Brian.
What do you mean by “already”? Are you suggesting there was a time before religion?
Well, probably there was a time before “religion” existed as a separate category.
And, for that matter, what do you mean by “us”?
If you’re really going to make the claim you seem to be making, you need to do an extensive study of the history of ideas, look at each significant new idea that came along, and show that it did not arise from a religious context—or at least, demonstrate that it would have arisen anyway without the religious context.
Bach was, by all accounts, a genuinely religious, devout man, and many of his greatest works reflect that. Without religion, he would have been a different person, his creative output would have been different… and it’s really hard to say how he, or any creative person, would have turned out if he had had substantially different influences or a substarntially different background or been a substantially different sort of person.
Czarcasm, you are the one who does not understand science – and I say that as someone with multiple degrees in science and engineering, and who made aliving out of teaching college physics.
Building a shelter does NOT require science. One can intuitively understand that fastening some boards together will help create a sturdy structure, and that when these boards are properly arranged, they can protect one from the wind and the rain. This is not science, though. It is inventiveness, but that’s not the same thing as science. There is no rigorous process of experimentation using controls and experimental variations, for example. (Before you objection, somebody CAN devise an experiment which compares the structural integrity of different domiciles. That’s irrelevant, though. The point is that a systematic application of science is NOT required for building a structure.)
Ditto for creating fire. An observant caveman can stumble across the fact that striking a piece of flint can create sparks, and that these sparks can be used to ignite some kindling. That’s a helpful observation, but by itself, it’s not science. At best, it’s only a precursor to science. Your problem is that you are diluting the definition of science, making it so all-encompassing as to be virtually meaningless.
You presume that religion was necessary for any of those. it’s not, to the extent it even did any of that; it did an inferior job. Warped laws, destroying more knowledge than it saved, and so on. As for the arts and architecture that people keep bringing up, so what? The Nazis did great with spectacle and style too; was that a justification for Nazi Germany? Arts raised up to honor evil don’t justify that evil.
And yes, the comparison of religion to Nazi Germany is fair; both because the evils of religion are even greater than those of Nazism, and because no religion means no Holocaust for the Jews. The evils of Nazism had a very strong Christian drive behind them.
How typical. Whenever religion is criticized, we see the “religion is pure and perfect! It’s those evil, evil humans who perverted it!” Despite the fact that they were clearly doing what their religion demanded of them and said so. Why do you think it was the leaders co-opting religion and not the other way around? What makes you think that it’s the people who do evil in the name of religion who were twisting it to their own purposes, and not the people who try to do good for religion that are twisting it?
Absolutely correct. That’s why it’s foolish to say “The Egyptians built pyramids! They were practicing science!”
Many doper have this unfortunate tendency to trumpet their supposedly superior intelligence over the rest of the populace. I do agree that dopers tend to be fairly well-educated, but when they make ridiculous statements like “Knowing how to build a shelter is an example of science!”, then it becomes clear that these self-congratulatory claims are a bit overblown.
It may not require science, but it does require that you ignore religion or that the religion in question doesn’t speak on the matter. Otherwise the shelter will fall down and the fire not catch. Religion doesn’t work. Religion is all about things that don’t work and aren’t true.
And that is one of the reasons why science and progress in general are innately the enemy of religion; because science speaks of the world as it is, while religion speaks of delusion. Science requires that you ignore religion, because religion is always wrong and science is at least an attempt to be right. Progress in general requires that you ignore religion, because progress requires that your actions be in line with reality and not fantasy.
For that matter, if there was such a thing as genuine knowledge from revelation that would be the enemy of religion just as science is; anything true is the enemy of religion.
Religion can provide something of benefit without religion being necessary to the development of that benefit. The art example above was dismissed because artists would have developed art of some other type. By that logic you might as well not give anybody credit for anything.
If Edison hadn’t invented the light bulb, would we be sitting around watching TV by candlelight or would someone else have invented it?
The thread has already provided examples of good things done for/by religion and it is irrelevent that someone else might have done them also. The same logic of all of the evils that religion has provided would likely have been done for some other reason because they weren’t really done by/for a superior being, they were done by humans.
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. It seems to me that religion and science are two fundamentally different epistemologies. Yes, they do not necessarily contradict each other, but the fact of the matter is, they are substantially different.
Science is not certain (epistemically speaking) and is largely abductive/inductive, requiring direct or indirect evidence.
Religion is (generally) certain and is related to us via revealed revelation.
We might quibble about whether the two ways of knowing are ‘at odds’ and what that would mean, but they are substantially different.
If revealed religion suggests an absolute truth on something - say the origin of human beings - and the empirical method of science suggests something different, how would you describe the clash?
I agree with this reasoning overall - although I could swear that Edison didn’t actually invent the lightbulb…Maybe I’m thinking of something else though.
Ah the Templeton Prize. This is a religious entity that gives away huge amounts of money to people who “prove” religion and science are not in conflict. This anti-Nobel Prize already assumes the answer then awards people who agree with their already established conclusions.
BTW If modern western science is said to have a beginning it would be with the ancient Greeks of Ionia. Long live Eratostanes!
By humans in the name of religion. Many of those evils wouldn’t have occurred without religion because people wouldn’t have had the motive or the excuse to do those evils. You seem to be arguing that humans commit evil in an automatonlike fashion regardless of what they believe.
Actually your subjective opinion on the matter is better then God’s subjective say-so on the matter since you actually have to interact with objective reality. You are not removed from situations that provide material for contextual moral reasoning.
That is yet another caricature. The Templeton Prize is indeed awarded based on spiritual criteria, as applied in a very general sense (i.e. not favoring any particular religion). That is not the same as saying that they specifically honor people who prove that religion and science are not in conflict.
But even if we grant your claim, the point remains that Jaki is an established historian whose focus has been on the history of science. In contrast, the snipers here at the SDMB have simply offered broad and unsubstantiated objections (e.g. “science came out of religion only because most were religious at that time, and religion just couldn’t do the job”).
