Is religion based on fear? (not what you think)

[Evie]

In today's world its usually the older generation that will argue that technology will corrupt humans. I'm a software trained, pc and network trained electro-mechanical technician who is agnostic and have firmly argued that we would be better off without technology and that each technological advance creates more discord. My father who went to a seminary and is highly religious will argue vehemently against me and has more technology is his house than I do in mine.

So I guess I'm saying you can find fear or dislike of technology across all distinct groups and you can find support for it across all distinct groups.

For my part I'm a naturalist outside of work and I believe because of my work and understanding of the limits and faults in technology, I am strongly against most technological advances.

Because technology such as the web is making it far easier for criminal activity. In every area of immoral and criminal behaviour; mankind is becoming more and more corrupt. But it is no use railing against it. Same as the fear of a nuclear war, no ridding the world of such things once in existence. Man is his own worst enemy.

 

[Evie]

Nice how you completely ignored what I said about how the usefulness of a scientific discovery has NOTHING to with with how valid it is. Scientific validity is determined by the scientific method. The exact same scientific method that enabled science to conclude that the Earth orbits the sun is the exact same scientific method that prompted the scientific community to elevate Darwin's hypothesis into a full fledged scientific theory. You can pretend that evolutionary theory hasn't produced any benefits all you want, but that doesn't change the reality that the ToE uses the exact same scientific method as every other science.

In the book. Darwin's Dangerous Idea on page 44 it states that If up for publication to-day, he would run into trouble with The Trades Description Act because of the title. 'The Origin of the Species'. It goes on to say, that even what is known now about genetics, the way in which species begin is a mystery. Even the brilliant physicist Hawkins admits that for the supposed Big Bang to occur, something had to be a source for it to occur. Something cannot come out of nothing. Where does that leave science?

 

[Evie]

Ne

If I understand your question correctly, I can only answer for myself. I am extremely religious, though no longer part of any denomination. I am also, though somewhat old, extremely into technology, machinery, Sci-fi, etc. Physics and math used to be my pursuits.

From my background, I can only say that my religious stance only supports extreme interest in technology and the solution of humanity's problems using technology and science to assist ourselves, and I would love it if governments could think of ways to avoid using our science for weaponry and killing each other, and instead used it for the betterment of humanity's condition and our interaction with earth.

Never going to happen as you would like. Unfortunately.

 

[Stormcry]

There's a fear. The fear of losing oneself for eternity.

My question is not if religion is based on "fear of god".
But if it is related to "fear" of technology and scientific advancements.

 

[Kemosloby]

Nice how you completely ignored what I said about how the usefulness of a scientific discovery has NOTHING to with with how valid it is. Scientific validity is determined by the scientific method. The exact same scientific method that enabled science to conclude that the Earth orbits the sun is the exact same scientific method that prompted the scientific community to elevate Darwin's hypothesis into a full fledged scientific theory. You can pretend that evolutionary theory hasn't produced any benefits all you want, but that doesn't change the reality that the ToE uses the exact same scientific method as every other science.

You're sounding a bit defensive. There is no proof that mankind and apes descended from a common ancestor. There is only a theory. Even if it was biologically possible, and the odds it happened naturally seem abundantly poor, it still doesn't mean it happened that way. For instance, it is possible that your mom and her dad could produce offspring, but it doesn't mean it happened that way.

 

[paarsurrey]

My question is not if religion is based on "fear of god".
But if it is related to "fear" of technology and scientific advancements.

I've come across many religious people, that will argue that technology will corrupt humans.
The more "strict" the person was, usually the more emphasis this argue takes.

Science is a boon bestowed on human beings by God out of His mercy, so there is nothing to fear from science. God has put science in service of human beings in the physical and material realms. Rather we must thank God to put it in service of human beings . We must be careful however in use of it in the deeds detrimental to human welfare, lest we burn our fingers and the whole body attached . Right? Please
Regards

 

[Evie]

Science is a boon bestowed on human beings by God out of His mercy, so there is nothing to fear from science. God has put science in service of human beings in the physical and material realms. Rather we must thank God to put it in service of human beings . We must be careful however in use of it in the deeds detrimental to human welfare, lest we burn our fingers and the whole body attached . Right? Please
Regards

Humanity has gone too far on it's path of self- destruction in many many ways. Mankind will destroy itself. Is existing on borrowed time. Do I sound like the voice of doom? Sorry!! But facts are facts.

 

[SomeRandom]

The Amish come to mind.

Ahh the Amish. Of course. Good booze makers, though.

 

[Quintessence]

I see very little indication of what the OP talks about in the mainstream religious communities of my country. Americans (by and large) are infatuated with technology and consuming it, in part because they've been manipulated into that attitude through capitalism, marketing, and cultural upbringing. All the while, the costs of that affluence are downplayed or ignored.

As for me? I would hardly say I have a fear of technology or of sciences. I love the sciences as a way of knowing, as I love the arts. Technology, however, I frequently despise, but only because humans have proven themselves incapable of doing anything other than abusing it. This view is a distinct minority, even within the nature-centered and animistic Pagan community. Still, it is not fear. It is sheer hatred. How anyone could not hate the means that engineered a sixth mass extinction and a geologic legacy of trash and garbage is honestly beyond my comprehension.

 

[miodrag]

My question is not if religion is based on "fear of god".
But if it is related to "fear" of technology and scientific advancements.

May it be a fear of God, or fear of technology, or whatever - it is psychosis that is based on fear, not religion.

 

[igno remos]

I think there are good and bad investments in both. Total immersion in religion will stagnate society and total immersion science will destroy society. They actually make good counters to each other. I look at it as Religion is the emotional side of us based on faith; while, science is the rational side of us based on truth. Both are parts of us so inherit our good and bad qualities.

So Can we just keep the good and jetteson the bad and move on?

 

[bobhikes]

So Can we just keep the good and jetteson the bad and move on?

If it were only that easy, we are still human.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In the book. Darwin's Dangerous Idea on page 44 it states that If up for publication to-day, he would run into trouble with The Trades Description Act because of the title. 'The Origin of the Species'. It goes on to say, that even what is known now about genetics, the way in which species begin is a mystery. Even the brilliant physicist Hawkins admits that for the supposed Big Bang to occur, something had to be a source for it to occur. Something cannot come out of nothing. Where does that leave science?

Where does that leave science?

That leaves science doing exactly what it has always done, waiting for evidence before assigning a definitive explanation for anything. Thus far the evidence indicates that originally the universe existed as a singularity and that SOMETHING caused it to begin expanding. Theists are welcome to speculate that GOD DID IT! Science doesn't have that luxury. Science waits for verifiable evidence before reaching a conclusion. As long as verifiable evidence isn't found, it will remain an unanswered question among scientists.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You're sounding a bit defensive. There is no proof that mankind and apes descended from a common ancestor. There is only a theory. Even if it was biologically possible, and the odds it happened naturally seem abundantly poor, it still doesn't mean it happened that way. For instance, it is possible that your mom and her dad could produce offspring, but it doesn't mean it happened that way.

There is only a theory.

It's ONLY a theory, huh? How sad that you don't have a clue what a scientific theory IS. Are you under to ridiculous impression that a scientific theory is just a guess? Do you think that the theory that the Earth orbits the sun is just a GUESS? A scientific theory is as close as science ever comes to stating that something is a FACT. A scientific theory is a hypothesis (an educated guess) that has been rigorously subjected to the scientific method and is backed up by evidence. A scientific theory is the best model science has for how a particular phenomenon works. There is currently more evidence to support the ToE than there is evidence to support the theory that the Earth orbits the sun. That you and others have chosen to ignore that mountains of evidence that the scientific method has revealed about the ToE is completely irrelevant.

 

[Segev Moran]

May it be a fear of God, or fear of technology, or whatever - it is psychosis that is based on fear, not religion.

Why would you say Psychosis?

 

[Handyman355a]

My question is not if religion is based on "fear of god".
But if it is related to "fear" of technology and scientific advancements.

I've come across many religious people, that will argue that technology will corrupt humans.
The more "strict" the person was, usually the more emphasis this argue takes.

This is backward humans corrupt technology, just look at the many ways data is corrupted thru hacking malware and all creations of people. Technology supports the story of creation Moses and Jesus Christ

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

So far I have read replies 1 > 6 and I must say BRAVO! I am so proud of our members (that posted responses 1>6). I guess I was expecting far 'worse'.

 

[MJFlores]

My question is not if religion is based on "fear of god".
But if it is related to "fear" of technology and scientific advancements.

I've come across many religious people, that will argue that technology will corrupt humans.
The more "strict" the person was, usually the more emphasis this argue takes.

Maybe that would be true for the Amish in the US

The Amish (/ˈɑːmɪʃ/; Pennsylvania German: Amisch, German: Amische) are a group of traditionalist Christian church fellowships with Swiss Anabaptist origins. They are closely related to, but distinct from, Mennonite churches.

 

[miodrag]

Why would you say Psychosis?

Because it is a mental disorder. Any effect caused by fear other than a natural response to a threat is a mental disorder.

 

[Segev Moran]

This is backward humans corrupt technology

What does that mean?

just look at the many ways
data is corrupted thru hacking malware and all creations of people.

What do you mean "all creations of people"?
And what data is corrupt?

Technology supports the story of creation Moses and Jesus Christ

Can you please elaborate on that claim?