• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientology leader David Miscavige saw psychology as a threat.

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
No, religious people expected to find scientific laws because they believed in a law giver.


That's a meaningless thing to say, as non-religious people didn't expect any differently.

The universe obviously operates in certain ways - regardless of there being a creator or not.

That there are such things as natural laws, does not in any way hinge upon the believe that someone created said laws. At all.



They expected to find design because they believed in a designer.

None of them ever found design. Nore did anyone ever explicitly tried to look for such, to my knowledge.

This atheist nonsense is just that.

What "atheist nonsense"? What are you talking about?
YOU are the one who's trying to put the credit for modern science in the theistic camp...

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I didn't claim that modern science is "thanks to atheism". Nore did I say it's "thanks to theism". I only said that in a lot of cases, it was in spite of theism, as the scientific results contradicted religious narratives.

Believe it or not, religious people are smarter than people like you often give them credit for.

I also at no point ever said that "religious people are stupid" simply because they are religious....
You might want to go by what I actually write down, instead of that which you are inserting between the lines for no good reason.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
No. In fact you mostly have religious people to thank for modern science.
Well there would need to be a disclaimer that long as it doesn't affect their religion, that contribution to science is wonderful.
 
That could also be rephrased as "you mostly have people to thank for modern science".

In a lot of cases, progress in science wasn't made "thanks to" religion but rather "in spite of it".
And that still continues to this day.

Even well known anti-theist Lawrence Krauss disagrees (at around 1h 30m 45s), as do basically all historians of science (I'm more interested in their views, but at least Krauss can't be dismissed as an apologist :D).


Paraphrased:
We have religion to thank for the rise of modern science, although it was the only game in town. It functioned as the national science foundation of its day and it led to something remarkable. It's ok to acknowledge this historical role, but now we should thank it and move on.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Paraphrased:
We have religion to thank for the rise of modern science, although it was the only game in town. It functioned as the national science foundation of its day and it led to something remarkable. It's ok to acknowledge this historical role, but now we should thank it and move on.
Key point: although it was the only game in town

Today it no longer is the only game in town. And non-religious people have no problems at all being motivated to find out how stuff works and work in science to find out exactly that.

Might as well thank the Nazi's for their "Autobahn", or "highway" as we call it today.

I'm simply objecting to the idea that says "if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't have science".
That to me is just obviously wrong.

As wrong as saying that "if it wasn't for the nazi's, we wouldn't have any highways".
It's ridiculous.

There's no reason at all to think that if they didn't kickstart it (for whatever motivation they had), nobody ever would have.

So I see little use in this idea of giving religion some kind of "ownership" or similar of the scientific enterprise.
The bible doesn't detail the scientific method. Nore does the Quran or any other scripture.

People came up with it, whatever their motivation might have been. And clearly it doesn't "require" religious underpinnings either. It isn't dependent on it in any way, shape or form.
 
Key point: although it was the only game in town

This view seems to assume that had it not been there then something else would have filled the same role in the same way. We have plenty of evidence form human society that this is in no way true. Almost all human societies have had no similar game in town.

I'm simply objecting to the idea that says "if it wasn't for religion, we wouldn't have science".
That to me is just obviously wrong.

If someone says "we wouldn't have modern science", I'd agree. This is rarely the argument being made though (outside of apologist circles anyway). The argument is that it is quite plausible that we would not have developed it, at least in the same time frame, had it not been for specific influences from religion (view of nature, view of human cognition, funding, mass education in natural philosophy, increased literacy, preservation and transmission of scientific texts, social prestige for those working on 'useless' (i.e. non-productive) ideas, personal motivation to study, progressive view of history, etc).

Any values that can be created in one belief system can obviously be created in another. The assumption that they would have appeared at the same time or faster without Western religion is not supported by any real logic though.

We have plenty of evidence that this combination of beliefs were not common in human societies and there is no teleology to human history that says they must be created in any limited timeframe though.

If you play poker and get a royal flush in your 10th hand that is something that is very unlikely. It is possible next time you play that you get one in even fewer hands, it's certainly not probable though.

There seem to be 2 broad ways of looking at the issue:

1) What were the unique and contingent conditions that made possible the emergence and persistence of the modern concept of science? (Why did it emerge in a particular time and place given the many thousands of other societies that could have 'invented' it but didn't, and why did it catch on rather than disappearing like other intellectual fads with minimal practical benefit at that time?)

2) Given its inevitability and intrinsically progressive nature, what are the factors that have inhibited or slowed down the development of science and the scientific mind? (As a 'natural' activity it should have appeared earlier, who is to blame?)

The argument that religion significantly contributed to the development is based on 1, proponents of the Conflict Thesis myth seem to assume number 2. Number 2 is a bit too much like Divine Providence for my liking though. There is no reason why any ideological system must necessarily develop.

If 1 is true, the it becomes quite easy to note the contributions of religion to the development of modern science.

People came up with it, whatever their motivation might have been. And clearly it doesn't "require" religious underpinnings either. It isn't dependent on it in any way, shape or form.

It doesn't require religious underpinnings, but it does require underpinnings. Many of these were provided by religion.

It's perfectly fair to note that there is no need for this in modernity, but historically, something had to provide them and that something was the Christian tradition and institutions (although not solely these, there were other inputs too).
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
It's perfectly fair to note that there is no need for this in modernity, but historically, something had to provide them and that something was the Christian tradition and institutions (although not solely these, there were other inputs too).

And before that, Islamic institutions.
And after that, humanist / secular institutions.

I don't quite see the point in bickering about all this.
A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from.
 
And before that, Islamic institutions.

Not in the same manner. Islam is decentralised, lacks monasticism, etc. and the funding of the sciences was mostly due to wealthy patrons.

So while the Church was the biggest funder of science and education, 'the mosque' was not.

And after that, humanist / secular institutions.

The state took over the role that had previously been occupied by religious establishments. Had the state created these systems in the first place they might have evolved very differently focussed on the needs of state over abstract learning (see China for example).

I don't quite see the point in bickering about all this.
A good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from.

It's important to note that negative aspects of religion, but pointless bickering to note that these are vastly overstated and are significantly outweighed by the contributions?

In general though I think the history of ideas is interesting and important. If you want to make sure your value system thrives, it's a good idea to understand where it comes from and how it emerged.

The main problem with Secular Humanism, and to a broader extent European liberalism as it exists in the public imagination, is that, in the minds of its adherents it is the natural result of impartial reason and the freedom from religious/ideological bias rather than being the result of a very specific cultural history.

They are then surprised when the rest of the world stubbornly refused to embrace Secular Humanistic values despite increasing wealth and education. They are also surprised at the rise of 'backwards' ideologies in the post-Christian West, and will continue to be surprised as their value system becomes less significant globally.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Remember that Scientology is not an authentic religion. It is a long con that exists to rob you of your money.

It began by presenting itself as psychology, but was ridiculed by genuine psychologists. Why? Because it's not real science.

That past is why Scientology is so opposed to psychology. Hurt feelings.
 
Top