Okay, there’s a lesson here:
do not post in idle moments at work without thinking :smack:
Shame, because there’s an interesting question somewhere there, but I asked in in possiblyy the worst way imaginable. I am still curious as to whether religion is a fundamental human need, but that point sure isn’t going to get debated in this thread.
Well there’s nothing wrong with a rant, but a rant is a rant and a question is a question. If you try to mix the two you will alienate half your potential audience. I did attempt to address your question by the way.
Now that is interesting - what was Bruno executed for, if not for heresy in his ideas of the universe? This is not me being snarky, I am genuinely curious to know if I have been misled.
Bruno was executed for his theological heresies, not for his scientific beliefs. And you said, “astronomers,” implying that it happened to several different people. May I suggest that you read, say, The Sleepwalkers by Arthur Koestler. The notion that even in the case of Galileo’s trial it was mostly a matter of science vs. religion is inaccurate. Please, don’t embarrass yourself further in this thread. Read some accurate history of science before you pontificate about it.
Bruno was actually on trial for Docetism, not Copernicism. Two very different things. Bruno also publicly denied the doctrine of the Trinity. That was bad enough for a normal person, but since Bruno was also an ordained priest it was double bad.
It’s telling that he was wanted by the Inquisition starting around 1576, even though he didn’t publish Cena de le Ceneri until 1584.
Anyway, Bruno was toast because of his really, really profound differences with Catholic dogma. His promulgation of Docetism was enough to get him burnt, most likely. And then if you combine that with his denial of the Trinity, you have a recipe for trouble during Reformation-era Europe.
Would you also say that religion has never interfered with the advancement of science?
So, regroup, rephrase, ask a Mod to close this one, and start one with the real debate. Which surely the board’s philosopher/theologians would join in earnest.
Well, I’ve always thought that Marxism, Maoism, etc. were practiced like religions, with much worse punishments for heresy than almost all modern religions would allow. So I guess the answer is yes. Take away the village imam and people will believe in the village commissar.
Sometimes religion has hurt the advance of science. Sometimes it has helped the advance of science. Mostly it has been indifferent to it. And that’s my point. You should read some more history of science. Religion vs. science battles have been only a small part of it, and there’s no good case to be made that religion has been a major barrier to the advance of science.
I think the problem is not religion, but religion combined with political power. When the RC church had political power (such as in the time of Bruno/Galileo), it could perpetrate atrocities in the name of defending its doctrines. Now, there are no ecclesiatical courts (with power over non-religious people). Also, religion must include all ideologies…I would say that Leninist Communism killed far more people than all other religions combined.
Will religious beliefs die away? I don’t know…but it does seem that the number of athiests seems to be increasing with time. As far as religion harming anyone, if you accept a set of beliefs on a totally voluntary basis. then I don’t see how such religion could ever harm you.
The Regional Economist puts forth the theory that “Fear of Hell Might Fire Up the Economy” for nations.
Well that explains the roaring economies of China and India. 
by my interpretation, this characterization is inaccurate.
according to wikipedia:
and a few choice words from various folks of the period (from a book by andrew dickson white, cited in the wikipedia article):
it certainly seems to me that the conflict centered around the opposing viewpoints of science and religion. though it may be that mechinations against galileo started because he irked the wrong people personally, the movement gained steam because of its perceived conflict with religious doctrine.
**Requoted: **
I need some help with this, in spite of having read it 4 times.
Are they saying that attendence in churchcould lower growth (presumably because contributions to the church take away funds that would otherwise be put to greater economic uses) but the potential exists that, as a byproduct of showing up at church, one might learn something, shaping one’s beliefs, thereby changing one’s behavior into one that is economically beneficial?
Did I read that right?
Which one of these guys had the revelation (pun intended!) that “church attendance may also increase religious beliefs” ? (and thereby shape behavior)
Help me out with this. It certainly looks to me that they start with a theory they’re not even sure of, (hence the word “could”) and before the paragraph is over eviscerate their own theory. (“the net effect would be uncertain…”)
:smack:
[Devil’s Advocate]
One could argue that religion is interferring in the advancement of stem cell research in the U.S. right now.
[/Devil’s Advocate]
I would challenge you to read the Holy Bible from Genesis through Revelation. Read to understand what God is saying. Whenever Jehovah God dealt with man he made it very clear that if man would but follow Him explicity that he would prosper and that when man deviated from His way he would suffer the consequences. Mankind has gone far astray from The Way prescribed by God and we are in the midst of those consequences.
Somehow I don’t think so, where as people may not go to Church alot or even at all nowadays, people still hold a deep rooted belief in God, or a higher power. I don’t like Church or anything associated with it, I find it boring as well as the practises. But I still have a casual belief in God.
Really? If you’re so confident in that assertion, then surely you wouldn’t mind putting it to the test, right?
Tell me know, how many people have the Israeli army killed?
Now tell me how many people were killed under the rules of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot.
Once you’ve gathered those figures, let’s compare the results. I think you’ll be surprised.
I think it would be a better world if people didn’t “believe” anything. I think absolute certainty in ones convictions, especially a certainty gained a priori, is so frought with peril that it’s a luxury we can no longer afford, if we ever could. It’s human nature to hold such beliefs, and even an agnostic like me falls into the trap, but I hope I can keep my senses about me well enough to get out eventually.
I’m confident rational skepticism is the best approach to life. I don’t think any subject is off-limits to skeptical inquiry; and if some notion or widely-held belief should be found to be lacking after being scrutinized skeptically, I think it would be best for us to discard it. I do find it troubling that people of faith, by definition, cannot approach certain ideas this way.
Certainly faith has inspired much beauty and good, but we’ve seen time and again that malignant individuals can coopt faith and, with sincere intent or with cynicism, move entire nations to do ghastly things. It seems to me that something about faith has the power to override rational judgement, and while there are many benefits to faith, its liabilities can turn even the most well-intentioned into agents of destruction.
I don’t see how our species can survive if faith can endow individuals or groups with such certainty in their actions and motives that they would use the most fearsome weapons we have at our disposal against others who do not share the same beliefs. I cannot see how any rational skeptic could be moved to kill on a massive scale simply because an unseen power demanded such action. True putative “atheist” nations have had their share of attrocities, but I would say in those countries individuals like Stalin, or Mao, simply switched the objects of devotion, raising themselves up to god-like status in the minds of their loyal followers. Such tyrants never invited open discourse, or question of their rule; they demanded absolute loyalty, and made their will Truth. Replacing religion with brutal personality cults is not in any way the ideal of a secular humanist civilization, guided by rationalism and skepticism.
I think the “killing” of religion need not erase spirituality, nor should it prevent people from wonering about their purpose in life, or if their is a higher power at work in the world. I certainly wonder about these things from time to time, and wish I had answers. I don’t find the idea that I’m likely never to get such answers at all comforting. It is tempting to want to be comforted, and I would never deny that to another person.
What I wish would dissapear is the certainty, the unquestioning acceptance of the validity of any system of belief that is founded only upon faith. We should always question our beliefs, I think. We should always be able to put evidence over all other criteria to guide our actions. If the evidence fails to comfort or affirm, we still must be ready and able to accept it, or we will always live with the danger of fanaticism.
Then you don’t either have the needs that that toolbox addresses, meet those needs by means of other toolsets, or you haven’t come across a religion that has the tools you need.
That’s what religion is, fundamentally: a toolbox. A set of beliefs, metaphors, and practices that humans apply to meet certain needs. Those needs include: explanations of certain experiences, formation of communities, developments of systems for personal and community growth, security, and health, generation of emotionally satisfying practices, development, evolution, and support of worldviews. (Among other things.)
It should come as no surprise to you that people differ, have different experiences, interpretations, and needs. Thus, it seems reasonable that they will need different toolboxes to work with. Thus the variety of religions or lacks thereof. Human diversity is not going to go away; getting rid of all the religious toolboxes is not going to make the needs that those toolboxes were addressing go away.
Someone who thinks that there’s something fundamentally wrong with human nature will come up with a toolbox to deal with that eventually, with ideas of purification or atonement, even if you get rid of Christianity. Someone who thinks that the world works fine so long as it’s properly maintained and wants to set up a human methodology for doing so will also come up with a toolbox for that, even if you get rid of my religion and its relatives. Someone with a perspective that doesn’t consider reality’s moral character and tendencies to exist or be relevant won’t need such a toolbox at all, and thus will have no need to develop it. And so on.
What a fine thing that we all have different tastes! Why, if we all liked the same things, think of the oatmeal shortage!