GdB and others are going in circles trying to figure out what I’m on about, so here it is.
Any theory that religion somehow inspired science or otherwise led to it requires demonstrating how a philosophy that accepts supernatural events could lead to one that has as a primary premise that everything is natural. Religion may have been responsible for stabilizing society in some way, but that could be said of slavery. Both of those have obvious destabilizing factors also. Science does not have similar factors. If you think it does, you are probably thinking of the application of scientific discoveries. If you say those are not different, then you can’t also say that religion and spirituality are different.
Science has always occurred within the context of religious cultures because the natural world is always there, naturally doing what it does in a predictable and repeatable manner. Of course people saw this and inquired about how it happened and were wildly wrong on their first guesses. The difference is, if you take away a religion (and they die out all the time so you can observe this) it doesn’t come back in its original form. There is no religion ever that existed in one part of the world and also existed in another part or time without the two being aware of each other. You don’t discover religions.
You do discover this amazing universe. So amazing that you might think there is some super-agent making it happen. It’s much harder to consider that there is no agent. When Descartes referred to “Maker", that’s him struggling with that. Darwin had a similar struggle. Most of the early scientists did. If you take away science (as has also happened a few times in history) it is rediscovered, then it is built upon. Change in science is an increase in knowledge, not just another wild theory to fight over and name your tribe after. That’s why science is better.
The only science religion inspired is Christian Science and we know how that worked out.
Lois
I guess I wouldn’t worry about it either way. For starters your terms are completely vague. What does it mean to say X inspired Y? Without X there wouldn’t have been Y? That’d be a tough one to prove in your case. In any event, let’s just say the Christian religion inspired Science. Was that a positive inspiration or a negative? For example, one can say My mom was an alcoholic and that inspired me to not drink. Or my mom never touched alcohol and that inspired me to not drink too. So merely inspiring something doesn’t say much. And moreover, just because Y is inspired by X doesn’t imply that there’s some characteristic of X in Y. This is sort of a silly example but it makes the point: My grandmother took up running at the age of 75, and that inspired me to take up writing. But there’s no relationship between her running and my writing.
My point is, what inspired what is a pointless discussion to have. If you really want to see if they believe what they say they do, tell them to jump out of a plane without a parachute while praying to their god to save them. Or tell them to take a parachute, which is a product of science, and see which option they take. I’ll bet it’ll be the No-Prayer option.
I like the “what does inspired mean" question, but it gets a little strange after that. If you say it is tough to prove, you’ve destroyed the entire art of history, or even the present, why bother making any speeches at all or attempting to make the world better? Someone apparently has an idea of how to inspire and what inspires.
I understand the unrelated affects thing. A good example is the Condemnations of 1277. On the surface it was obvious suppression of studying the Greek texts. However there was some merit to pointing out what was wrong with Plato. By setting a rule to keep reason and rational discussion limited only to the natural world and away from God, some say that inspired science.
But anyway, pointless? Really? It’s not a question of what is believed now, the question is, is religion an inspiration to improvements in society? If so, how? It can pretty easily be shown how Integral Calculus improved our lives. There were also bad consequences. It is a little harder to show why it was developed at the particular time it was, but there are connections that can be drawn. I think it’s important to know what environment we need to create so we can continue to nurture the discovery of such important ideas.
I think the term “inspired” is vague. Why not pose the question with a more quantifiable term like “influenced”?
Hi Lausten,
I used the word ‘crusade’ because you are arguing very passionate on one side, and as I see it, aim your arrows at a point that simply just does not deserve so much passion. We all know that there are some important differences between religion and science. Science not allowing for supernatural explanations being one of the most important. However, I would be careful to say that it is an essence of religion that it contains supernatural explanations. Religions give an interpretation of the how the world is, and how we as human beings can live in it, i.e. what might be meaningful for them. When its truths do not riguously stick to what can be empirically checked, then of course you quickly can get supernatural explanations. As these cannot be defendend by reasoned argument and empirical investigation, the best way to establish supernatural truths in society is to force them upon it, or convince its members with ‘true myths’.
Any theory that religion somehow inspired science or otherwise led to it requires demonstrating how a philosophy that accepts supernatural events could lead to one that has as a primary premise that everything is natural.This is just plain wrong. When in some theology there are people who believe that one way to know God better is by studying his creation, by studying according to which laws his Universe works, then that certainly could develop into science. When it on the long term it turns out that one can explain so much of the universe that one can do away with the hypothesis of a God, then one has left its religious roots. Those who stick to the religion's supernatural truths, will of course protest, and try to oppress these ideas. Possibly already very early many Christian theologians saw this danger and tried it. They did not succeed in the end, as we know now. Only when you use a very essentialist definition of religion, that it per definition contains supernatural explanations, and everything in a religion that is based on logic, observation and experiment is in fact science, one can defend your position. But then you must explain how science could ever develop out of a time in which everything was interpreted mythically and religiously.
I do think supernatural is essential to the definition of religion, so that’s a problem for us if you don’t. Science develops by critically thinking about what is real and discussing how to make that determination. Only the most liberal forms of religion can nurture that, and religions that have integrated with the military are definitely not the liberal type.
I’m glad you agree that “supernatural" truth must be forced on people. It seems it doesn’t bother you that this is still something that could happen. Perhaps our differences stem from our views on where the world is going. I think we are in imminent danger of returning to a theocracy. They still exist and have weapons. The arguments used to reverse the enlightenment in Islam in the 10th century are being used today, and they still work for a lot of people.
The Christian history is different, but the Fall of Rome could be repeated. The less we understand it, the more likely that is.
I do think supernatural is essential to the definition of religion, so that’s a problem for us if you don’t.I think I pass this to PLaClair... I see no problem, only that we must be both aware that we obviously use slightly different definitions of the word 'religion'.
I’m glad you agree that “supernatural" truth must be forced on people. It seems it doesn’t bother you that this is still something that could happen.Of course I am bothered with that! But should I change my view on the origins of science, because present fundamentalist Christians misinterpret history? I have no idea where you get the idea that I am not disturbed by that. Only because I do not agree with you on this topic of the role of Christianity in the development of modern science? Because I accept the standard view of historians about this? Wow.
I do think supernatural is essential to the definition of religion, so that’s a problem for us if you don’t.I think I pass this to PLaClair... I see no problem, only that we must be both aware that we obviously use slightly different definitions of the word 'religion'.
I’m glad you agree that “supernatural" truth must be forced on people. It seems it doesn’t bother you that this is still something that could happen.Of course I am bothered with that! But should I change my view on the origins of science, because present fundamentalist Christians misinterpret history? I have no idea where you get the idea that I am not disturbed by that. Only because I do not agree with you on this topic of the role of Christianity in the development of modern science? Because I accept the standard view of historians about this? Wow. I say that because I see parallels between then and now, and you don't. The 4th centuries Christians were just as wrong about the Bible as fundamentalists are today and they gained power. Hopefully people are smarter today, but sometimes I wonder. Here's another way to look at it. Does capitalism encourage science? Certainly it needs science for technology, but sometimes science impedes business by pointing out dangers. The tobacco industry and leaded gasoline are examples of capitalist scientists claiming to use evidence for the truth when really they weren't. Our government, which supports capitalism, also funds science, often just purely for exploration. But sometimes it also gets its hands in there and manipulates the reports. It also chooses when to listen to science and when to ignore it. All of these have parallels to how the Roman Catholic empire handled reasoned and rational arguments. But when I add it all up, I see much more support for science now and much more direct suppression of science then.
It’s my thread, I can resurrect it if I want.
I just listened to this talk from PZ about finding what “good” means and what is good about the community of scientifically based atheism. In the first five minutes of PT 2 here] he defines science as “trying really hard to figure out how things really work instead of just hoping they work the way you want them to.” (not an exact quote). In PT 1, he talks about the power of an idea, something Christianity figured out when it wrote, “In the beginning was the word”. Ideas are a lot harder to destroy than a power plant or a castle.
I think he speaks to some of the things that have been said to me here about how I define science in a way that it is always the right thing and religion is always the problem. As PZ notes in the Q&A (PT 5), there is usually some decent kernel of truth in a religion, but it gets meshed in with the supernatural until the supernatural becomes the requirement to get to that truth. Science is focused only on the truth, even when it discovers something, like washing your hands prevents disease, it doesn’t stop there. It keeps digging to find out why that works and what’s behind that.
Listening to the history of atheism, (linked in the Conflict Thesis thread), I thought about where you and I went south. That documentary uncovered many lesser players and made the case that religion sowed the seeds of it's own destruction. This is similar to what you've been saying, although on re-reading I'm having trouble parsing out just what you were saying, but anyway, instead of saying Christianity somehow inspired or led to science, he was saying that alternatives were explored and deism started to flourish during the reformation. Also intelligent design became popular as the idea of a mechanical universe began to overtake a magical one. The thing is, that you miss, is both of these movements began to undermine the church. The thesis of the documentary falls apart when he points out these early scientists who claim divine inspiration and says the "conflict thesis" didn't exist but then also points out the church was calling them heretics and burning their books (Baron H'Olbach, 8/18/1770). You once said that both of these movements, science and religion, had a common ancestory, but the only history I see is religion allowing a little of science to occur, because reason is hard to argue with, but always trying to repress it when it starts to affect their bottom line. We are finally at a place in history where science is the one in control and can allow religion a little leeway but can and should be keeping it out of the classrooms and out of politics.Any theory that religion somehow inspired science or otherwise led to it requires demonstrating how a philosophy that accepts supernatural events could lead to one that has as a primary premise that everything is natural.This is just plain wrong. When in some theology there are people who believe that one way to know God better is by studying his creation, by studying according to which laws his Universe works, then that certainly could develop into science. When it on the long term it turns out that one can explain so much of the universe that one can do away with the hypothesis of a God, then one has left its religious roots. Those who stick to the religion's supernatural truths, will of course protest, and try to oppress these ideas. Possibly already very early many Christian theologians saw this danger and tried it. They did not succeed in the end, as we know now.
The only science religion inspired is Christian Science and we know how that worked out. LoisIt never did "work out". Unfortunately all who could have confirmed that truth are now dead.
The only science religion inspired is Christian Science and we know how that worked out. LoisIt never did "work out". Unfortunately all who could have confirmed that truth are now dead. That was my point. You could say the same thing about all religions. Lois