Religion has given us nothing

[Voyager]

@JThunder

Who knows? Jaki didn’t say that Jewish belief could NOT have lead to the same result. He merely points out that it did not.

He seems to be saying that belief in the Incarnation - and in creation from nothing and lack of necessity - are requirements for the development of science. He does not say that they are the only possible requirements, but I get the definite impression that he thinks that no other existent religion could lead to science.

Again, he didn’t claim that belief in Christ was the only way in which science could have come about. Quite the contrary; he acknowledged the scientific talent that was evident in other cultures, even though science ultimately proved to be stillborn in those societies. Rather, he said that science came about due to, and was fostered by, Christian culture.

It is true that he does not claim that only Christians have scientific ability, but it seems he does claim that such ability is futile unless existing in a Christian culture. This does not seem supportable given that it took 1200 years or more to happen in a Christian culture - time no other culture had - and it also required the rediscovery of the Greek writings to inspire Western science.

Therein lies the problem with your objections (and to a more severe extent, the objections raised by others). They require attacking an inaccurate representation of what Jaki said. It gets frustrating to have to point this out time and again, and there are more responsible ways in which I need to be using my time. I will point out, however, that it’s poor form to dismiss this article as a “steaming pile” when one’s objections do not accurately address the claims that he made.

Am I inaccurate in saying that Jaki claims that the idea of creation from nothing is Christian? That all Jewish and Moslem intellectuals of any note are pantheists? That belief in the Incarnation was fundamental to the development of science in our culture? Most of the things you claim I claim he said (like people of scientific ability not arising in non-Christian cultures) I didn’t claim he said.

[Voyager]

@Der_Trihs

Actually they hadn’t gotten to that point by the time of Galileo. One of his major sins was in discovering sunspots when it was religious dogma that the Sun was perfect; not like the corrupt matter of fallen Earth.

It wasn’t the Church that came up with the idea that everything worked under the same rules; it was science working against the explicit position (and the threats of torture and death) of the Church.

That’s what I meant - they got to that point thanks to Galileo, who took heat exactly because he showed that heavenly bodies were not perfect.

[Der_Trihs]

@ITR_champion

Actually, in pre-Christian times, everybody living in the Roman Empire was forced to worship the Emperor. This was the primary cause for the violent persecution of Christians for three centuries–Christians refused to worship the Emperor. When Constantine converted and became the first Christian Emperor, he proclaimed religious freedom.

“Free” to be Christian, or else. Christians were persecuted because they refused to acknowledge any other religions, including Emperor worship; they were the least tolerant of all the religions there. And because they used the Romans as weapons against each other in their doctrinal disputes, turning each other over to the Roman authorities.

@Voyager

That’s what I meant - they got to that point thanks to Galileo, who took heat exactly because he showed that heavenly bodies were not perfect.

I’d give Newton more credit; Galileo just showed that the heavens weren’t perfect, Newton showed that they obeyed the same rules as we do.

And the Church didn’t get to that point until well after Galileo.

[Voyager]

@ITR_champion

You are, I hope, aware that the Dante’s Divine Comedy is a poetical work whose cosmology is a metaphor for the ascent of the human soul towards divine truth, rather than a literal description.

But he worked off of accepted cosmology. He didn’t invent the placement of Mt. Purgatory at the antipodes from Jerusalem (and anyone thinking that there was belief in a flat earth back then should really read Dante.) Are you claiming that in 1200 there was belief that the planets were lumps of rock like Earth?

There was plentiful science in Europe during the 1200 years after Christianity rose to power. There was a great deal of development of new strains of crops and livestock, as well as an effort to spread the best strains across Europe. There were also great developments in metallurgy, with the processes of metal mining and smelting being vastly more efficient in the Middle Ages than in ancient times. There were advances in clock-making and tool-making, with great improvements in precision. It’s simply untrue to say that there were no advances in science during that period. Once the truth is known, the real question becomes why there were so many advances in science in Christian Europe as compared to the rest of the world.

There has already been a discussion about how to define science. If we define it the way you are, then we’ll have to admit that science long predated Christianity. Jaki appears to be defining science as something which began in the Renaissance, with the development of structured experimentation and the scientific method, and I tend to agree.

By what standard was it “not so well supported by the Church”? Who do you think provided the funding for Galileo to do his experiments throughout his life? It wasn’t the local group of atheists.

I don’t think we need to go over the Church being less than happy with his results again.

I think we can argue that the growth of the secular state and the relative weakening of the church had a lot to do with the rise of science - which happened centuries after the doctrines mentioned here. Bacon had a clue, but was a pioneer who was not followed for quite a while.

Cite?

For Bacon having a clue or for science as we know it not starting directly from him?

[magellan01]

@ITR_champion

Actually, in pre-Christian times, everybody living in the Roman Empire was forced to worship the Emperor. This was the primary cause for the violent persecution of Christians for three centuries–Christians refused to worship the Emperor. When Constantine converted and became the first Christian Emperor, he proclaimed religious freedom.

Excellent posts in this thread. I’d like to just add that there were many flavors of religion. and all were accepted, as long as one also worshiped the Emperor. THAT was the problem with the Christians.

[Voyager]

@ITR_champion

I would suggest you read up a little more about the introduction of Christianity to the Americas and to other parts of world as well. Peaceful missionary work has been the rule. There are very few instances that match up with what you are describing here.

Oh yeah?. Pull the other one, it has bells on. And of course, as I mentioned, most conversions in Europe were done after the ruler converted.

Actually, in pre-Christian times, everybody living in the Roman Empire was forced to worship the Emperor. This was the primary cause for the violent persecution of Christians for three centuries–Christians refused to worship the Emperor. When Constantine converted and became the first Christian Emperor, he proclaimed religious freedom.

Not Jews. Few other polytheistic religions cared about one more God, and the Romans did not forbid worshiping whichever gods they chose. Mithraism, for example, was quite popular.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The state worship of Rome wasn’t really so much religious as patriotic. It was a token, mostly symbolic expression of loyalty to the state. No one care what you else worshipped, or even if you truly worshipped the emperor, it was just a ceremonial expectation.

Refusing to contribute some coins at the state temples or acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor was analogous to refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance or stand for the National Anthem. Christians also wouldn’t serve in the military, so they were seen as unpatriotic little douches who wouldn’t fight for their country or show allegiance to their Emperor. It wasn’t really religious.

Constantine did not allow religious freedom, by the way. He persecuted Christian heretics and led military campoaigns against them. He also forced even Christians to honor Sol Invictus (The God he actually worshipped. Despite his political pretense to Christianity and his baptism, he still continued to worship pagan gods and remained the head of the Roman Pagan Priesthood all his life).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Curtis LeMay

Christianity implemented the moral concept that all humans are brothers and fundamentally equal.

Perhaps you can point to a Bible verse to that effect?

[Der_Trihs]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Perhaps you can point to a Bible verse to that effect?

Not really relevant, but the term “Bible verse” always gives me the vision of a Bible translated into all-Limerick form.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Got a cite for that? In historic times, at least, it seems not to be the case that regions with similar religions or beliefs unite, but that one belief conquers another and forces the population of the conquered area into the belief system of the first. Sometimes this is done culturally (as in the Greek religion spreading to Rome) and not by the sword, but much more often the latter. South America is not Catholic because the indigenous people suddenly decided that it was a good idea, after all.
[/QUOTE]

Do I have a cite that religion was a unifier? What do I need a cite for, when your own post is pretty much saying the same thing. For some reason, folks in this thread are focusing on Christianity, even though the thread is about religion. Indigenous peoples in the new world were united by religion long before Christianity wandered in. Much (hell, all of) their monumental architecture was devoted to religion. It united them into the large pre-Colombian states, built their cities and much of the culture that still remains.

As for by the sword, so what? Much of human history is devoted to subduing or destroying other peoples by the sword. How does this fact refute that religion was still a unifier (which, presumably was what you were asking me to cite). Christianity (since that seems to be what most of the folks in this thread thing ‘religion’ means) is a perfect example. It spread throughout the world, unifying disparate peoples. Often it did this by the sword, but not in all cases, even in the new world (though many times it appealed to those left alive after the ravages of disease, starvation and mad Europeans bent on shiny metals and rocks). What of that, though? The end result is that a large percentage of those indigenous peoples today (or at least their surviving ancestors) are Christian of one flavor or another…and there are a hell of a lot more of them today than there were before.

My point here is pretty much what I said earlier…religion is certainly a force in human history. Often that force was negative, destroying or causing great harm. However, it also built much of the culture, architecture, arts, even the seeds of science and technology. It preserved a lot of our past that would otherwise have been lost. IMHO (no cite for that, though I suppose my post is my cite for my opinion ;)) it was the initial spark in pre-human history that allowed us to bind together in order to form organizations larger than a hunter gatherer band scrounging for snacks.

In pre-Christian times, religion was more fragmented because conversion by sword was not done - see Alexander the Great, for example.

Even if that was the case (and I think the key point was simply that there were less people, and that they were more loosely organized and in smaller groupings), so what? A lot of little religions based on regions or a couple of large religions spanning the globe, it’s all the same, since the common thread was that they were all influenced and tied together by some kind of religion. Think about any group of peoples of who’s historical record or remnants survive to this day…how many of them were atheist? How many of them display zero indications of some kind of religion, be it ancestor worship, shamanism, totem worship or something along those lines? Consider that much (most? all?) of the early art work of pre-history humans has shamanistic or totem references, which strongly indicates SOME kind of religion. Or the earth mother figurines.

-XT

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Der_Trihs

Not really relevant, but the term “Bible verse” always gives me the vision of a Bible translated into all-Limerick form.

*There was a young man from Bethlehem
Who was born, died and lived again
He rejoined his father
But found out he’d rather
Hang out with 12 beardy holy men
*

[JThunder]

@xtisme

Christianity (since that seems to be what most of the folks in this thread thing ‘religion’ means) is a perfect example. It spread throughout the world, unifying disparate peoples. Often it did this by the sword, but not in all cases, even in the new world…

Heck, more often that not, it was not done by the sword. The early church, for example, spread rapidly and mightily, even though it had no military power whatsoever. And today, the Christian church has been experiencing phenomenal growth in countries such as China and Sudan – countries where the Christians are hounded and persecuted, sometimes to the point of death.

Certain people like to fixate on the Crusades, for example, and act as though this was representative of Christianity in general. Never mind that the Crusades were the action of one specific denomination (the Roman Catholic Church), or that they only occupied a slice of time in history. That’s the problem with many of the anti-religious claims that dopers routinely make in these threads. They pay little or no attention to nuances such as the diversity of religious views or the grand scale of human history.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Because I say so. Wrong is whatever I say it is. Just like you. All moral opinions are autonomous. Religion does not save you from that.

I’ll remember to quote you on that every time you issue decrees on what’s right or wrong.

[Voyager]

@xtisme

Do I have a cite that religion was a unifier? What do I need a cite for, when your own post is pretty much saying the same thing. For some reason, folks in this thread are focusing on Christianity, even though the thread is about religion. Indigenous peoples in the new world were united by religion long before Christianity wandered in. Much (hell, all of) their monumental architecture was devoted to religion. It united them into the large pre-Colombian states, built their cities and much of the culture that still remains.

I read your post as saying that two groups with similar religions would unite thanks to their commonality, and that religion could be thanked for that. If you are actually saying is that religion is used as yet another means of subjugating captured peoples, I can’t argue.

As for by the sword, so what? Much of human history is devoted to subduing or destroying other peoples by the sword. How does this fact refute that religion was still a unifier (which, presumably was what you were asking me to cite). Christianity (since that seems to be what most of the folks in this thread thing ‘religion’ means) is a perfect example. It spread throughout the world, unifying disparate peoples. Often it did this by the sword, but not in all cases, even in the new world (though many times it appealed to those left alive after the ravages of disease, starvation and mad Europeans bent on shiny metals and rocks). What of that, though? The end result is that a large percentage of those indigenous peoples today (or at least their surviving ancestors) are Christian of one flavor or another…and there are a hell of a lot more of them today than there were before.

Language is sometimes used the same way, with a native language being banned. Is this a good thing? And of course even after the unification of Europe under Christianity, it only took a bit over a thousand years for them to start fighting for ten decades for the gods they made.

Even if that was the case (and I think the key point was simply that there were less people, and that they were more loosely organized and in smaller groupings), so what? A lot of little religions based on regions or a couple of large religions spanning the globe, it’s all the same, since the common thread was that they were all influenced and tied together by some kind of religion.

Within a tribe or empire perhaps, but not across empires. While Alexander considered himself to be descended from the gods, he married a Persian princess in her religion. I’m not sure it was true, but I was taught that Alexander is a common Jewish name because he did not try to impose his religion when he conquered Judea (unlike some of his descendants.)

Think about any group of peoples of who’s historical record or remnants survive to this day…how many of them were atheist? How many of them display zero indications of some kind of religion, be it ancestor worship, shamanism, totem worship or something along those lines? Consider that much (most? all?) of the early art work of pre-history humans has shamanistic or totem references, which strongly indicates SOME kind of religion. Or the earth mother figurines.

-XT

No atheists - but no cultures based on science or rationality either. Most earlier cultures also had a state religion with participation required by the state (not Rome, though.) We seem to get along well without such a thing, and with many religions, and increasingly none. Should the US enforce a state religion to confer the benefits of unity?

[Voyager]

@JThunder

Heck, more often that not, it was not done by the sword. The early church, for example, spread rapidly and mightily, even though it had no military power whatsoever. And today, the Christian church has been experiencing phenomenal growth in countries such as China and Sudan – countries where the Christians are hounded and persecuted, sometimes to the point of death.

Do you deny that many kingdoms in Europe were Christianized not by individual conversions but by conversions ordered by the king - often with those holding the old religions subject to the death penalty? For instance, after Henry the VIII mass converted England to Protestantism, Catholics operating in Elizabethan England and caught would be beheaded and have their heads up on pikes.

Certain people like to fixate on the Crusades, for example, and act as though this was representative of Christianity in general. Never mind that the Crusades were the action of one specific denomination (the Roman Catholic Church), or that they only occupied a slice of time in history. That’s the problem with many of the anti-religious claims that dopers routinely make in these threads. They pay little or no attention to nuances such as the diversity of religious views or the grand scale of human history.

Well the RCC was one of only two Christian denominations at the time, and the Crusades were either initiated or supported by the Pope, not some random village preacher. And if you want some consistency in Christian history, you need only consider how my ancestors were persecuted by those loving Christians.

Actually, in the grand scale of human histories most religions thought that their god was one of many, the top guy no doubt, and that other religions were fine for other tribes. Persecution on the basis of god-belief alone was a Christian invention, it seems. Very effective in spreading it, I must admit. So, that is one thing one religion has given us for sure - religious wars.

[Voyager]

@Aji_de_Gallina

I’ll remember to quote you on that every time you issue decrees on what’s right or wrong.

If you think religion is a better guide to what is right and wrong, why don’t you tell us which religion you choose to give us guidance, how you choose it, and how this choice is in some way more logical than just choosing what is right and wrong directly, guided by ethics of course.

[Der_Trihs]

@xtisme

As for by the sword, so what? Much of human history is devoted to subduing or destroying other peoples by the sword. How does this fact refute that religion was still a unifier (which, presumably was what you were asking me to cite). Christianity (since that seems to be what most of the folks in this thread thing ‘religion’ means) is a perfect example. It spread throughout the world, unifying disparate peoples. Often it did this by the sword, but not in all cases, even in the new world (though many times it appealed to those left alive after the ravages of disease, starvation and mad Europeans bent on shiny metals and rocks). What of that, though? The end result is that a large percentage of those indigenous peoples today (or at least their surviving ancestors) are Christian of one flavor or another…and there are a hell of a lot more of them today than there were before.

Wars of forced conversion and genocide and the wholesale destruction of cultures are your idea of how religion “unifies” people? What in the world would qualify as something dividing people then?

You aren’t showing how religion has unified people; you are simply trying to define “unify” so broadly that it’s meaningless. You are also implying that mass murder is a good thing, since this is your idea of defending the supposed benefits of religion.

[Quartz]

@Der_Trihs

You presume that religion was necessary for any of those.

You’re inventing; I make no such presumption.

it’s not, to the extent it even did any of that; it did an inferior job.

So? You admit though, that it did do the job.

destroying more knowledge than it saved,

Cite, please for this. Yes, I know about the Library of Alexandria, but that was one incident..

and so on. As for the arts and architecture that people keep bringing up, so what?

So a lot. I defy you to not be delighted at places like the Sistine Chapel.

And yes, the comparison of religion to Nazi Germany is fair; both because the evils of religion are even greater than those of Nazism,

I don’t recall Christianity or Islam organising the systematic extermination of millions of people. The same cannot be said for Communism.

and because no religion means no Holocaust for the Jews. The evils of Nazism had a very strong Christian drive behind them.

Cite?

How typical. Whenever religion is criticized, we see the "religion is pure and perfect!

You’re inventing again. I made no such claim.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Voyager

Well the RCC was one of only two Christian denominations at the time, and the Crusades were either initiated or supported by the Pope, not some random village preacher. And if you want some consistency in Christian history, you need only consider how my ancestors were persecuted by those loving Christians.

Actually, in the grand scale of human histories most religions thought that their god was one of many, the top guy no doubt, and that other religions were fine for other tribes. Persecution on the basis of god-belief alone was a Christian invention, it seems. Very effective in spreading it, I must admit. So, that is one thing one religion has given us for sure - religious wars.

It’s not like Palestine/Israel was taken over by Muslims/Arabs knocking on the doors of Christians
No, most religions did not do that. Inca, China, India, Japan, India/Pakistans, Greek, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Nubians, Mali, Zimbabwe…lots of conquering peoples without “top-guy” mentality.

@Voyager

If you think religion is a better guide to what is right and wrong, why don’t you tell us which religion you choose to give us guidance, how you choose it, and how this choice is in some way more logical than just choosing what is right and wrong directly, guided by ethics of course.

I won’t.
It’s simply that “I decide what’s wrong” runs contrary to his several decrees on moral issues.

[monavis]

@Curtis LeMay

Christianity implemented the moral concept that all humans are brothers and fundamentally equal.

I think The Buddha came with that idea 500 years before Christianity. The Golden Rule!