paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Everybody is welcome to give one's valued thoughts here.
Regards
Regards
-
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!
The contributions of Religion to sciences
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
picnic
Active Member
Religion and science are expressions of the same human instinct - to understand past observations and predict future observations. Religion is simply the failed hypotheses that continue to exist for other reasons - like their ability to control societies or their ability to make people feel good.
An example of the overlap is astrology and astronomy. If early people had not been looking to the stars for explanations, then they would not have developed calendars, agriculture, physics, astronomy, ...
An example of the overlap is astrology and astronomy. If early people had not been looking to the stars for explanations, then they would not have developed calendars, agriculture, physics, astronomy, ...
The pursuit of sciences is a fundamentally religious drive. What I mean by that is a couple of things. One, to be "religious" simply means to be passionately devoted, and pursuing the sciences to the graduate level requires serious devotion. Two, the overall purpose of religions are to provide a framework for understanding, relating to, and exploring the world around us; it's a system for expressing values and meaning. The sciences, unquestionably, play into that need for meaning and understanding.
In short, studying the sciences always has a religious motivation, though this may not necessarily be tied to a specific religion. There are certainly many cases of individual scientists pursuing their field because they want to understand "God's creation" or the like. I myself pursued graduate work in sciences because the sciences are the study of my gods. For others, the motives can be unrelated to a specific named religion, and that's fine too.
In short, studying the sciences always has a religious motivation, though this may not necessarily be tied to a specific religion. There are certainly many cases of individual scientists pursuing their field because they want to understand "God's creation" or the like. I myself pursued graduate work in sciences because the sciences are the study of my gods. For others, the motives can be unrelated to a specific named religion, and that's fine too.
Augustus
…
Newton would be probably a good example. His fascination with astronomy, arguably, was linked to a desire to establish a chronology for Biblical events, and his mathematics was, arguably, related to a desire to prove a Divine Logic to the world based on its creator God.
"Atheism is so senseless & odious to mankind that it never had many professors. Can it be by accident that all birds beasts & men have their right side & left side alike shaped (except in their bowells) & just two eyes & no more on either side the face & just two ears on either side the head & a nose with two holes & no more between the eyes & one mouth under the nose & either two fore leggs or two wings or two arms on the sholders & two leggs on the hipps one on either side & no more? Whence arises this uniformity in all their outward shapes but from the counsel & contrivance of an Author? Whence is it that the eyes of all sorts of living creatures are transparent to the very bottom & the only transparent members in the body, having on the outside an hard transparent skin, & within transparent juyces with a crystalline Lens in the middle & a pupil before the Lens all of them so truly shaped & fitted for vision, that no Artist can mend them? Did blind chance know that there was light & what was its refraction & fit the eys of all creatures after the most curious manner to make use of it? These & such like considerations always have & ever will prevail with man kind to beleive that there is a being who made all things & has all things in his power & who is therfore to be feared." (Isaac newton - 'A short Schem of the true Religion')
Some Medieval Islamic thinkers like Ibn Sina also sought to ground theology in science, and scientific pursuit was related to proof of religious truth.
Numerous scientists also gained access to university education through studying theology, such as the Reverend Thomas Bayes (of Bayesian probability fame).
If you count economics as a science, then Adam Smith's free market ideas relied on Divine Providence to ensure the functioning of the market and cannot be separated from religious ideas.
That science (or anything else for that matter) were separate from religion is mostly a modern idea anyway. Most historical thinkers would not have made the distinction.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Religious people have, of course, contributed to scientific discoveries. But, I fail to see how religion itself has contributed.
Religion tends to get in the way.
Just ask Galileo.
But many religious folk have made wondrous contributions.
So Newton thought I'm "odious", eh?
I showered yesterday!
Just ask Galileo.
But many religious folk have made wondrous contributions.
So Newton thought I'm "odious", eh?
I showered yesterday!
Last edited:
This is partially because in the modern day, we conceptualize "religion" to be something one can isolate from the rest of a person or a culture, even though this is not how religions operate in reality. All of the major social institutions of a civilization - which typically include religion, government, education, economy, and family - are so universally pervasive that they contribute to or influence all aspects of a culture, including (but not limited to) the sciences.
Skwim
Veteran Member
I'm unaware of any contributions by religions other than Christianity, so it will be my only focus here.
In days of yore, much of European study was centered around monastic learning. During the later part of the dark ages the church was home to almost all the scientific progress and knowledge taking place. Religion per se wasn't involved with its progress, but supported science by providing venues in which it could operate. But then science began kicking religion in the shins with its discoveries. Such "crises" as those initiated by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and later on Darwin, drove science into conflict with Christianity, which has been the only relationship the two have had since then---albeit some denominations have made peace with it. In short, religion hasn't contributed anything to science for hundreds of years.
In days of yore, much of European study was centered around monastic learning. During the later part of the dark ages the church was home to almost all the scientific progress and knowledge taking place. Religion per se wasn't involved with its progress, but supported science by providing venues in which it could operate. But then science began kicking religion in the shins with its discoveries. Such "crises" as those initiated by Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and later on Darwin, drove science into conflict with Christianity, which has been the only relationship the two have had since then---albeit some denominations have made peace with it. In short, religion hasn't contributed anything to science for hundreds of years.
Last edited:
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Religion opens the doors to exploring the greatest depths of reality.
It frees science from the restraints of always striving for a 'final explanation' that would best appear to 'make God redundant' in any particular field. e.g. static universe, classical physics, big crunch, gradualist evolution
I think this is primarily why most scientific progress has come from skeptics of atheism. They are free to look beyond the superficial explanation de jour.
Last edited:
Actually, science is not about finding a "final explanation".
As George Box said (paraphrasing).....all theories are wrong, but some are useful.
In other words, every theory stands ready to be replaced by a better one.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Oh sure, Dawkins is always quick to point that out when talking about evolution!
I don't know what Dawkins has to say about it (not someone I read).
But yes, if a better theory arrives to dethrone the TOE, then it shall reign.
Any contenders out there?
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
"Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...[] It didn't have to be true, but it is....Evolution is the only game in town.
(Dawkins, atheist celebrity and evolutionary biologist who contributed less to actual scientific progress than the inventor of the Chip Clip)
"Science progresses one funeral at a time" Max Planck (notable skeptic of atheism and originator of quantum theory)
Most of us ignorant masses are as skeptical of evolution accounting for all life, as we were of classical physics accounting for all physical reality.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I don’t think there is much religion has specifically given to benefit science and as much it has given to hamper it.
Lots of science has been (and is being) done by people who are religious but that doesn’t mean their religion played a positive or negative role in it. In general people are more complex than that and everything is interrelated in a manner that we can’t easily separate in this way.
A lot of science has been done within auspices dominated by religion but that has often been simply because there was no alternative, because a religion (or at least the show of it) was expected/required of everyone or religious organisations were the only one with (or allow to have) the available resources to spend on anything other than “staying alive this winter”. In some cases religion actively hoarded knowledge and learning because it could be considered dangerous for followers to start asking difficult questions.
I’d suggest both science and religion are results of the development of human beings ability to imagine, leading to a desire to know if what we’re imagining is true. With or without religion as we know it, I’ve no doubt humans would still have explored, studied, experimented and learned about the Universe around us.
Lots of science has been (and is being) done by people who are religious but that doesn’t mean their religion played a positive or negative role in it. In general people are more complex than that and everything is interrelated in a manner that we can’t easily separate in this way.
A lot of science has been done within auspices dominated by religion but that has often been simply because there was no alternative, because a religion (or at least the show of it) was expected/required of everyone or religious organisations were the only one with (or allow to have) the available resources to spend on anything other than “staying alive this winter”. In some cases religion actively hoarded knowledge and learning because it could be considered dangerous for followers to start asking difficult questions.
I’d suggest both science and religion are results of the development of human beings ability to imagine, leading to a desire to know if what we’re imagining is true. With or without religion as we know it, I’ve no doubt humans would still have explored, studied, experimented and learned about the Universe around us.
The Hellenic Classical world made great strides in all areas of human endeavor. The pre-Christian Greco-Roman world started Western science and set us on the path of scientific discovery that we walk today (although this was nearly snuffed out due to the destruction of the Classical world by tyrants and Abrahamic religious fanatics; we're still trying to get back on track because of that long interruption and so much was lost).
Many issues raised.
Here we go.......
"Evolution" typically refers to 2 different things.....
1) An observable change in species over great time. This rises to the level of being factual because it is data.
2) An explanation behind this process of change. This is a theory.
Interestingly, even #2 rises to the level of factuality when applied to biomimetic systems engineering, eg, genetic algorithms.
Dawkins has some basis for his certainty about evolution (#2 type).
There really is no competing theory which is testable or has explanatory power.
The commonly proffered alternatives (eg, YEC, ID) are merely ad hoc rescues for various religions.
Most atheists are also skeptical of atheism.
I'm typical in that I cannot prove there are no gods, therefore they could exist (even though I don't detect them).
I don't have THE TRUTH....just my speculations.
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
What is the point? And, considering Science means "to know" then many things of the past could be called early versions of science and science knowledge.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." Dawkins
Point being, Dawkins can never change his mind no matter the evidence, it would simply be too embarrassing for him.
To expand on Planck's point
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
We both know what the central premise of 'classical' evolution is today, that all species of life got here by a purely natural process, following no design instructions, just simple rules of random mutation and natural selection.
Kinda like stars and entire galaxies were once believed to be able to form out of simple laws of gravity and momentum
I cannot prove that a single cell cannot accidentally become a man, through millions of significant lucky improvements, but it's certainly nothing we can observe, test, measure.
Creative intelligence, purpose, design has an explanatory power nature alone never can.
I don't have the truth, I acknowledge faith in my beliefs-
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Except for evolution , which is "fact" apparently.
