• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Isn't religion to blame for the recent stifling of human progress??

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zaptruder

Banned
Just to note, yes it does come down to the people rather than religion...

but there are people that would otherwise strive without religion, just as there are some that strive under it.

It's really a question of net benefit then... are more people progressing thanks to religion then not?

I'd suggest that in the past, that may have been the case, important in developing a somewhat humane code of ethics and morals, but in the current era, I think it's more of a hindrance then a help in progress towards a better more inclusive future.
 

LuCkymoON

Banned
Ned Flanders said:
*Legitimate discussion, not just religion-bashing*

Now obviously I'm a bit biased, considering I'm among the least religious people on a forum that's predominantly godless to begin with, but I was thinking recently about where human kind has currently failed itself with regard to potential progress and I came to the conclusion at virtually every juncture that some form of religiosity was to blame for opposing new developments. Some examples:


Stem cell research: Without fundamentalist spiritualism/religion that regards microscopic, non-cognitive cells as sacrosanct life forms, we'd likely have far greater progress towards dozens of medical developments and potential cures. The religious are seemingly the only opponents of this research.

Mid-east stability/democracy: Again, fundamentalist Islam, with it's oppressive tenets of female subordination, strict adherency laws, the absolute authority of Muslim doctrine and Allah in the realm of politics, and its advocacy of Jihadist pursuits (and thus violent, often suicidal opposition of one's political opponents) has led the region toward steady instability. Governments subsequently land somewhere along the spectrum between absolutist Muslim affairs like the Taliban (who suffer not only from oppression and disregard for human rights, but also the ills of a stifled economy) or some form of authoritarian/dictatorial regime with a strongman like Musharraf/Hussein. Democracy is typically out of the question (Turkey the exception) as certain freedoms stand in opposition to prevailing religious sentiment and education is limited and ammended so as not to conflict with the Qur'an. This is not the Islam that was a bastion of scientific enlightenment during Europe's dark ages.

Reponsible environmental policy: I'll admit that this one is a bit of a stretch, as it's easier to point to an overall prevailing sentiment among the Evangelical/literalist contingent opposing environmental protections (presumably because of an impending apocalypse) than it is to cite specific examples of religious groups directly protesting a policy. One of those examples can be found however in the Bush administration's alleged subversion of NASA's global warming research, as well as his loosening of restrictions on emissions standards (asking for "voluntary" compliance from industrial polluters). Now you could likely point the finger to Bush's alliance with big business as the culprit in this scenario before you point to his religiosity, but there is a considerable echoing of his retrograde mentality toward environmentalism among religious conservatives. Greed in an understandable impetus when standing in opposition to responsible treatment of our environment. In fact it's relatively rational (if morally bankrupt) to say "I won't be here in the future, so why lose out on a buck today that won't be worth anything to me when I'm dead" if environmental policy cuts into your profits. But to oppose environmentalism because of your presumtions of the second coming of Christ, particularly in the face of religious views on the sanctity of life and the earth as God's creation, is just mind-boggling.

Education: I don't want to paint too broad a picture here, but even in the "enlightened" US, certain areas of education are consistently under attack from religious groups. Backwards communities have recently tried to make instruction of evolution an optional part of the cirriculum, while theology-masquerading-as-science affairs like intelligent design receive endorsements from the president himself. Responsible sex-education is stifled by calls for abstinence-only instruction (a proven failure, statistically). Why? Because God doesn't want your children fornicating, despite statistics that prove that adolescents, religious and otherwise, are universally likely to engage in sexual activity at a certain percentage, as well as the self evident principle that suppression breeds curiosity breeds irresponsibility with regards to sexual behavior (Catholic priests, anyone?). But still we have "God" setting the policy..

Equality: Gay marriage/unions are seen as a threat to the "sanctity of marriage", so much so in fact that it's somehow the government's responsibility to try and legally define marriage for us, yet divorce rates have long hovered at or above the 50% rate in spite of the fact that most married people are, in fact, religious. Yet no protests are held at divorce courts, and no one pickets over "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" and other cheapenings of the sanctified practice, virtually proving that those in oposition to same-sex marriages are in fact more interested in limiting the freedoms of others than glorifying their religious unions.


Now I realize that blind progressiveness (both in science and politics) would also obviously have its own ills, but in a responsible society with a sound democratic process and a defined sense of human rights (and please don't give me any crap about religious exclusivity on morality), wouldn't we be far more advanced as a people and a civilization without these religious impediments? Science free of faith-based dogmatic repression? Reality-based politics where politicians could stand on their principles without pandering to a religious base? A world in which education is stressed as paramount to even religion...a better one? Is this self-evident to anyone else or am I John Lennon?

Hellz Yeah!*
*I haven't read anything in this thread yet
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
whytemyke said:
How would you know whether compassion, charity and morality are in the human character or not? Religion has been embedded into human society nearly as long as we have written history, so it's impossible to discern between whether these things are intrinsic to humanity or not.

So you're saying, as long as there has been written history, there has been belief in something (even when there is no reason to believe in something... i.e. religion) I'm not sure if that actually says anything aside from "human nature gives rise to such abstract concepts as religion and morality".

Every single "universal" form of morality would have evolved in the animal kingdom, for ethically egoistic reasons.

Everything agreed to be good in society is mostly beneficial to every agent of society. Charity is good: It makes you feel good identifying with someone else. It aids the community. Perhaps that person will pay it back to you.... It's benefitial all around.

Everything agreed to be bad is, in the long term, probably bad for every agent in society. Murder is bad since one would have to stunt their human identification with the victim... harming their well-being. It deprives a life from living, which does bad things for society. That person will not be an ally in the future. And it creates potential enemies.

Those who murder, rape, steal have a low survival rate. Those who help their fellow man, act in charitable ways, and have compassion have a high survival rate. How could this be given by religion?

The real morality of religion..... Kill non-believers, don't work on the Sabbath, etc, is not universally agreed upon at all. That is the "morality" religion has given us.




whytemyke said:
Either way, this divisiveness you're talking about is just so misguided. If it weren't religion dividing us, we'd find other ways.... economic class, skin tone, political beliefs, philosophical beliefs, intelligence, etc.

Probably true. I didn't say religion was the sole cause of war (actually it's far from it). My statement was that religion causes more problems than it solves. Obviously I don't believe in its claims, so you see how I think it's false and harmful.

whytemyke said:
Let's not forget that the greatest tragedies in the last century weren't done for religion... they were done to get rid of religiosity. Rwanda, the Holocaust, purging of Russian jews, everything that the Chinese government has done to the Tibetans... these aren't crimes of religion. these were all done by relatively non-religious movements because they thought that it'd be better if we didn't have religion at all.

I agree that tolorance is required to end this type of warfare. That's why the battle bwetween reason and faith rages... on the internet!
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Instigator said:
Someone ought to test that baseless statement. Come out with the longest list of example of religion holding back progress and wait for anyone from the other side come out with a list 10 times as long.


That's why I said it was unquantifiable. You can not measure the intentions of man. Just because a man acheives something (good or bad) in the name of religion, doesn't mean that was his true intentions.
 
Ned Flanders said:
Isn't the problem that religion is the realm of faith, and that faith is in opposition to reason, and we live in a world whose function is understood entirely through reason?

Historically, faith and reason where never seen as contradictory, or at odds with each other. That "common sense," as it is treated today, is a very recent development in the history of our thought, and due mostly to the average modern person's ignorance concerning the teachings and writings of people from the last 2,000 years. Thomas Aquinas tackled this issue 800 years ago and determined that reason can only get people so far, and where reason's ability to bring in new information stops, faith picks up. Within the past 100 years alone, there have been many systematic theologies published on Christian doctrine. But what is a systematic theology? Nothing more then a rational discussion about God (to define it simply). Other than Thomas Aquinas, if you want a great, modern systematic theology that's very heavy on rational and logical consistency, pick up the first volume of Dr. Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology. He's a theologian and a philosopher, one I'd highly recommend.

The issue is explored in much greater detail Here and if you are really interested in the issue, I would highly recommend reading the link. Chapter 4 is entitled "The Relationship Between Faith and Reason." if you just want to skip down to that one to get a thorough treatment on the matter from Pope John Paul II. The second half of chapter 4 might be of good interest to general discussion on this board, so I'll paste it here for all the read, as it's somewhat buried in the wabpage above:

The enduring originality of the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas

43. A quite special place in this long development belongs to Saint Thomas, not only because of what he taught but also because of the dialogue which he undertook with the Arab and Jewish thought of his time. In an age when Christian thinkers were rediscovering the treasures of ancient philosophy, and more particularly of Aristotle, Thomas had the great merit of giving pride of place to the harmony which exists between faith and reason. Both the light of reason and the light of faith come from God, he argued; hence there can be no contradiction between them.(44)

More radically, Thomas recognized that nature, philosophy's proper concern, could contribute to the understanding of divine Revelation. Faith therefore has no fear of reason, but seeks it out and has trust in it. Just as grace builds on nature and brings it to fulfilment,(45) so faith builds upon and perfects reason. Illumined by faith, reason is set free from the fragility and limitations deriving from the disobedience of sin and finds the strength required to rise to the knowledge of the Triune God. Although he made much of the supernatural character of faith, the Angelic Doctor did not overlook the importance of its reasonableness; indeed he was able to plumb the depths and explain the meaning of this reasonableness. Faith is in a sense an “exercise of thought”; and human reason is neither annulled nor debased in assenting to the contents of faith, which are in any case attained by way of free and informed choice.(46)


This is why the Church has been justified in consistently proposing Saint Thomas as a master of thought and a model of the right way to do theology. In this connection, I would recall what my Predecessor, the Servant of God Paul VI, wrote on the occasion of the seventh centenary of the death of the Angelic Doctor: “Without doubt, Thomas possessed supremely the courage of the truth, a freedom of spirit in confronting new problems, the intellectual honesty of those who allow Christianity to be contaminated neither by secular philosophy nor by a prejudiced rejection of it. He passed therefore into the history of Christian thought as a pioneer of the new path of philosophy and universal culture. The key point and almost the kernel of the solution which, with all the brilliance of his prophetic intuition, he gave to the new encounter of faith and reason was a reconciliation between the secularity of the world and the radicality of the Gospel, thus avoiding the unnatural tendency to negate the world and its values while at the same time keeping faith with the supreme and inexorable demands of the supernatural order”.(47)

44. Another of the great insights of Saint Thomas was his perception of the role of the Holy Spirit in the process by which knowledge matures into wisdom. From the first pages of his Summa Theologiae,(48) Aquinas was keen to show the primacy of the wisdom which is the gift of the Holy Spirit and which opens the way to a knowledge of divine realities. His theology allows us to understand what is distinctive of wisdom in its close link with faith and knowledge of the divine. This wisdom comes to know by way of connaturality; it presupposes faith and eventually formulates its right judgement on the basis of the truth of faith itself: “The wisdom named among the gifts of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the wisdom found among the intellectual virtues. This second wisdom is acquired through study, but the first 'comes from on high', as Saint James puts it. This also distinguishes it from faith, since faith accepts divine truth as it is. But the gift of wisdom enables judgement according to divine truth”.(49)

Yet the priority accorded this wisdom does not lead the Angelic Doctor to overlook the presence of two other complementary forms of wisdom—philosophical wisdom, which is based upon the capacity of the intellect, for all its natural limitations, to explore reality, and theological wisdom, which is based upon Revelation and which explores the contents of faith, entering the very mystery of God.

Profoundly convinced that “whatever its source, truth is of the Holy Spirit” (omne verum a quocumque dicatur a Spiritu Sancto est) (50) Saint Thomas was impartial in his love of truth. He sought truth wherever it might be found and gave consummate demonstration of its universality. In him, the Church's Magisterium has seen and recognized the passion for truth; and, precisely because it stays consistently within the horizon of universal, objective and transcendent truth, his thought scales “heights unthinkable to human intelligence”.(51) Rightly, then, he may be called an “apostle of the truth”.(52) Looking unreservedly to truth, the realism of Thomas could recognize the objectivity of truth and produce not merely a philosophy of “what seems to be” but a philosophy of “what is”.

The drama of the separation of faith and reason

45. With the rise of the first universities, theology came more directly into contact with other forms of learning and scientific research. Although they insisted upon the organic link between theology and philosophy, Saint Albert the Great and Saint Thomas were the first to recognize the autonomy which philosophy and the sciences needed if they were to perform well in their respective fields of research. From the late Medieval period onwards, however, the legitimate distinction between the two forms of learning became more and more a fateful separation. As a result of the exaggerated rationalism of certain thinkers, positions grew more radical and there emerged eventually a philosophy which was separate from and absolutely independent of the contents of faith. Another of the many consequences of this separation was an ever deeper mistrust with regard to reason itself. In a spirit both sceptical and agnostic, some began to voice a general mistrust, which led some to focus more on faith and others to deny its rationality altogether.

In short, what for Patristic and Medieval thought was in both theory and practice a profound unity, producing knowledge capable of reaching the highest forms of speculation, was destroyed by systems which espoused the cause of rational knowledge sundered from faith and meant to take the place of faith.

46. The more influential of these radical positions are well known and high in profile, especially in the history of the West. It is not too much to claim that the development of a good part of modern philosophy has seen it move further and further away from Christian Revelation, to the point of setting itself quite explicitly in opposition. This process reached its apogee in the last century. Some representatives of idealism sought in various ways to transform faith and its contents, even the mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, into dialectical structures which could be grasped by reason. Opposed to this kind of thinking were various forms of atheistic humanism, expressed in philosophical terms, which regarded faith as alienating and damaging to the development of a full rationality. They did not hesitate to present themselves as new religions serving as a basis for projects which, on the political and social plane, gave rise to totalitarian systems which have been disastrous for humanity.

In the field of scientific research, a positivistic mentality took hold which not only abandoned the Christian vision of the world, but more especially rejected every appeal to a metaphysical or moral vision. It follows that certain scientists, lacking any ethical point of reference, are in danger of putting at the centre of their concerns something other than the human person and the entirety of the person's life. Further still, some of these, sensing the opportunities of technological progress, seem to succumb not only to a market-based logic, but also to the temptation of a quasi-divine power over nature and even over the human being.

As a result of the crisis of rationalism, what has appeared finally is nihilism. As a philosophy of nothingness, it has a certain attraction for people of our time. Its adherents claim that the search is an end in itself, without any hope or possibility of ever attaining the goal of truth. In the nihilist interpretation, life is no more than an occasion for sensations and experiences in which the ephemeral has pride of place. Nihilism is at the root of the widespread mentality which claims that a definitive commitment should no longer be made, because everything is fleeting and provisional.

47. It should also be borne in mind that the role of philosophy itself has changed in modern culture. From universal wisdom and learning, it has been gradually reduced to one of the many fields of human knowing; indeed in some ways it has been consigned to a wholly marginal role. Other forms of rationality have acquired an ever higher profile, making philosophical learning appear all the more peripheral. These forms of rationality are directed not towards the contemplation of truth and the search for the ultimate goal and meaning of life; but instead, as “instrumental reason”, they are directed—actually or potentially—towards the promotion of utilitarian ends, towards enjoyment or power.

In my first Encyclical Letter I stressed the danger of absolutizing such an approach when I wrote: “The man of today seems ever to be under threat from what he produces, that is to say from the result of the work of his hands and, even more so, of the work of his intellect and the tendencies of his will. All too soon, and often in an unforeseeable way, what this manifold activity of man yields is not only subject to 'alienation', in the sense that it is simply taken away from the person who produces it, but rather it turns against man himself, at least in part, through the indirect consequences of its effects returning on himself. It is or can be directed against him. This seems to make up the main chapter of the drama of present-day human existence in its broadest and universal dimension. Man therefore lives increasingly in fear. He is afraid of what he produces—not all of it, of course, or even most of it, but part of it and precisely that part that contains a special share of his genius and initiative—can radically turn against himself”.(53)

In the wake of these cultural shifts, some philosophers have abandoned the search for truth in itself and made their sole aim the attainment of a subjective certainty or a pragmatic sense of utility. This in turn has obscured the true dignity of reason, which is no longer equipped to know the truth and to seek the absolute.

48. This rapid survey of the history of philosophy, then, reveals a growing separation between faith and philosophical reason. Yet closer scrutiny shows that even in the philosophical thinking of those who helped drive faith and reason further apart there are found at times precious and seminal insights which, if pursued and developed with mind and heart rightly tuned, can lead to the discovery of truth's way. Such insights are found, for instance, in penetrating analyses of perception and experience, of the imaginary and the unconscious, of personhood and intersubjectivity, of freedom and values, of time and history. The theme of death as well can become for all thinkers an incisive appeal to seek within themselves the true meaning of their own life. But this does not mean that the link between faith and reason as it now stands does not need to be carefully examined, because each without the other is impoverished and enfeebled. Deprived of what Revelation offers, reason has taken side-tracks which expose it to the danger of losing sight of its final goal. Deprived of reason, faith has stressed feeling and experience, and so run the risk of no longer being a universal proposition. It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating; on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition. By the same token, reason which is unrelated to an adult faith is not prompted to turn its gaze to the newness and radicality of being.

This is why I make this strong and insistent appeal—not, I trust, untimely—that faith and philosophy recover the profound unity which allows them to stand in harmony with their nature without compromising their mutual autonomy. The parrhesia of faith must be matched by the boldness of reason.
 

dasein

Member
I always here this sort of rhetoric.

Whether you support religion or not, you have to question your very own question. Think about it:

Isn't religion to blame for the recent stifling of human progress??

Progress for what? If humans supposedly [have to] progress towards something, what exactly is that which you progress towards? The answer to that question reveals your philosophical stance on the world and life (worldview).

Thus, questions like these always presuppose there is something to look forward to, to strive for, things we deemed valuable but it it one's very own philosophical/religious stance or worldview that determines that.

Think about it.
 
dasein said:
I always here this sort of rhetoric.

Whether you support religion or not, you have to question your very own question. Think about it:



Progress for what? If humans supposedly [have to] progress towards something, what exactly is that which you progress towards? The answer to that question reveals your philosophical stance on the world and life (worldview).

Thus, questions like these always presuppose there is something to look forward to, to strive for, things we deemed valuable but it it one's very own philosophical/religious stance or worldview that determines that.

Think about it.

This man speaks the truth!!!
 

Bowen_B

Banned
I hate religion, I hate the religious.
I believe extremely strongly in eugenics.
I support all scientific research no mater how "unethical;" I am disgusted with the lack of progress science has made over the last 10 years in the field of biology.

Religion had the purpose of enforcing morality in an ancient world as nobody would be able to tell if someone had committed a crime; the prospect of an all-seeing being who would eternally punish someone made people restrain themselves. With the eye of big brother in the UK you can't do anything without being tracked on CCTV and punished.
These days religion has no place as people are as fearful of prison as they are of god, what stops me from killing every person I want to is law not my conscience.
 

Phoenix

Member
I shouldn't be as surprised as I am by the GAF response, but what I have been reading here is like blaming capitalism or democracy for the stifling of human progress. In the end, people are responsible for EVERYTHING within their control. Every man, woman, and child on the planet has a moral compass with which to be guided, but instead of being guided by that many would just try to put the responsibility on someone else to make the decisions about their lives. It doesn't just stop at religion either.
 

Bowen_B

Banned
dasein said:
I always here this sort of rhetoric.

Whether you support religion or not, you have to question your very own question. Think about it:



Progress for what? If humans supposedly [have to] progress towards something, what exactly is that which you progress towards? The answer to that question reveals your philosophical stance on the world and life (worldview).

Thus, questions like these always presuppose there is something to look forward to, to strive for, things we deemed valuable but it it one's very own philosophical/religious stance or worldview that determines that.

Think about it.
Curiosity is an inherent animal trait.
Humanity should be striving towards aquiring new knowledge regardless of the percieved consequences; the religious believe they will go to heaven anyway and the atheists couldn't care less.
 

Bowen_B

Banned
Link648099 said:
Hitler FTW!!!
Scroll up.
I believe in eugenics and I hate ALL religions equally.

Also Hitler didn't force any Jews to die, all they had to do was take off their yellow stars and burn the Torah. They would've been saved, also I don't agree with Nazi burning of books.
 

LuCkymoON

Banned
Bowen_B said:
Curiosity is an inherent animal trait.
Humanity should be striving towards aquiring new knowledge regardless of the percieved consequences; the religious believe they will go to heaven anyway and the atheists couldn't care less.
Even religious fanatics have to admit its kind of silly to strive for a life after death.
We humans should be living to further mankind's knowledge and understanding of all things, not just living for death.


Maybe we should just help all of the faithful and send them to their God. Isn't that what they want in the end?
 
Bowen_B said:
Scroll up.
I believe in eugenics and I hate ALL religions equally.

Also Hitler didn't force any Jews to die, all they had to do was take off their yellow stars and burn the Torah. They would've been saved, also I don't agree with Nazi burning of books.

Well, at least I applaud your consistency, for the most part. But would you deny your most fundamental beliefs, even if faced with death?

Logically speaking though, how do you keep from a nihilistic worldview?
 
Master_Shake_05 said:
You're an asshat and should not be allowed to post on the internets ever again.

**** YOU AND YOUR RELIGION.

/Thread

sar·casm n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
 
Link648099 said:
sar·casm n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
You want to teach me about sarcasm? You're a ****ing moron.

Plus, your's isn't funny or worthwhile. Go die in a fire.
 

Bowen_B

Banned
Link648099 said:
Well, at least I applaud your consistency, for the most part.

Logically speaking though, how do you keep from a nihilistic worldview?
Who says I don't? I survive only to experience, me and all my atheist friends have a suicide pact set for the day we lose full mobility and/or brain functionality.
We see it like this: How can we preach to euthanise the old if we don't hold ourselves to it?

All these religious nuts keep saying "Could you think about a world with a God?!" The answer is yes, I can. But can you?
I used to be a Christian and I remember the comfort I felt as a little child knowing I would live happily ever when I'm dead, then I grew up and decided that a happy ending like that is as equally unlikely as any fairy tale.

I challenge any of you to move to an area with faith more extreme than where you live and see how stupid it makes the people living there, they fail to question anything at all. It drives me mad!
 
Bowen_B said:
Who says I don't? I survive only to experience, me and all my atheist friends have a suicide pact set for the day we lose full mobility and/or brain functionality.
We see it like this: How can we preach to euthanise the old if we don't hold ourselves to it?

All these religious nuts keep saying "Could you think about a world with a God?!" The answer is yes, I can. But can you?
I used to be a Christian and I remember the comfort I felt as a little child knowing I would live happily ever after when I die, then I grew up and decided that a happy ending like that is as equally unlikely as any fairy tale.

I challenge any of you to move to an area with faith more extreme than where you live and see how stupid it makes the people living there, they fail to question anything at all. It drives me mad!
IAWTP.

/Thread
 
Wafflecopter said:
Being truthful about how full of shit religion is isn't a good idea on this site.
O RLY? Look what happened to Shawnwhann. I think there are enough enlightened posters on GAF to make this a worthwhile discussion, and not start a witch hunt because someone denies the existence of an absolute ruler of the universe ;)
 

dasein

Member
Bowen_B said:
Curiosity is an inherent animal trait.
Humanity should be striving towards aquiring new knowledge regardless of the percieved consequences; the religious believe they will go to heaven anyway and the atheists couldn't care less.

If that's what you believe, I respect your view, but I can't see how gaining new knowledge alone would account for the progress of human beings. I suspect you were implying that the new knowledge gained is also put to use.

With this we can then say that human progress is characterized by (1) the acquisition of new knowledge and (2) application of the new knowledge.

Of course, knowledge without its application is useless*, so it seems its application is especially important.

It seems to me that there ought to be though, some guiding principle for which you apply the new knowledge. You don't just wily nily apply new knowledge; there's always a purpose for utilizing a piece of knowledge, isn't there?


*in most cases
 

Bowen_B

Banned
The thing I find most suprising is the division between European extremism and extremism in the rest of the world.
European extremism seeks to eliminate all religions while elsewhere it seeks to enforce religion on everyone.
 

Bowen_B

Banned
dasein said:
If that's what you believe, I respect your view, but I can't see how gaining new knowledge alone would account for the progress of human beings. I suspect you were implying that the new knowledge gained is also put to use.

With this we can then say that human progress is characterized by (1) the acquisition of new knowledge and (2) application of the new knowledge.

Of course, knowledge without its application is useless*, so it seems its application is especially important.

It seems to me that there ought to be though, some guiding principle for which you apply the new knowledge. You don't just wily nily apply new knowledge; there's always a purpose for utilizing a piece of knowledge, isn't there?


*in most cases
Of course, I took that for granted and I expected all the posters here were not as petty as not to.
 

dasein

Member
Bowen_B said:
Of course, I took that for granted and I expected all the posters here were not as petty as not to.

Can you answer the last question in the post though (I'm interested in seeing your response)?
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Link648099 said:
::Sigh::

And the circle jerk continues :lol

ad nauseum

I enjoyed your posts anyway... looked like you were doing some thinking in them. Go figure.
 

Pakkidis

Member
My main problem with religion, is not that people believe in it, its that people try to preach it to others as if their religion is better than someone elses.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Pakkidis said:
My main problem with religion, is not that people believe in it, its that people try to preach it to others as if their religion is better than someone elses.

I must admit, I don't actually see this much, where I live (Canada). Aside from the occasional hearsay of so-and-so's religious Aunt, or the random Jehova's Witnesses/mormons, I never really hear about someone's religion on a personal level.

Of course, it comes up all the time in matters of politics..... or on the not-too-subtle internet.
 

rs7k

Member
Everything the OP said is pretty much dead on, although you should have left out the environmental stuff.

Religion is a joke.

/end thread
 

Bowen_B

Banned
dasein said:
It seems to me that there ought to be though, some guiding principle for which you apply the new knowledge. You don't just wily nily apply new knowledge; there's always a purpose for utilizing a piece of knowledge, isn't there?
I'm not sure, unless you apply all knowledge you may never realise all the possible benefits of it.
I mean who would've ever of though that the technology used in the atom bomb could be further developed into an important source of power?
In conclusion, yes all knowledge should be applied.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Master_Shake_05 said:
Therein lies the problem ;)

Make no mistake.... Canada has Christians.... But I really feel that they have no control of the community mindset here. Do you really face pressure from the community to convert, living in America?
 
BocoDragon said:
Make no mistake.... Canada has Christians.... But I really feel that they have no control of the community mindset here. Do you really face pressure from the community to convert, living in America?
I don't hold any stake in religion at all. Thankfully, most of my cohorts (
lol henchmen
) don't either. Unfortunately, many people discourage me from turning my back on religion, and I've even been looked down on by members of my own family.

Like I could give a ****?
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
MetalAlien said:
They found cavemen buired with flowers and beads 100,000 years ago, they are calling it the first signs of believing in life after death... you sure you know what you know?

I never saw this earlier.

Believing in life after death is not the same thing as believe in a God. It's not even the same thing as believing in gods (Zeus, Odin, etc.), which came earlier.

I'm sure that concept has been around since humans first concieved of death.
 

MetalAlien

Banned
BocoDragon said:
I never saw this earlier.

Believing in life after death is not the same thing as believe in a God. It's not even the same thing as believing in gods (Zeus, Odin, etc.), which came earlier.

I'm sure that concept has been around since humans first concieved of death.


To say one idea is unrelated to the other has to be foolishness. Believing in life after death is the leap beyond that which is seen and heard, once you do that there is no limit to what you can believe a possiblity.

Chicken and the egg, I can not believe and you can not prove the ideas didn't arrive at nearly the same time.
 

MetalAlien

Banned
Instigator said:
Not really. I have no problem imagining a world without God and I don't think I'm all that special. I think you are stuck with a certain way of thinking.



You're arguing a non-issue. God, when not described in human terms, is refered to in very abstract terms. When trying to probe a bit deeper, God is supposed to be beyond human understanding anyway so what is there to understand? Really?

In case you get obsessed with the point of explaining 'God' to someone with no knowledge of him, you just start with relating him to things familiar.

Imagine someone stronger than you, much stronger, invincible. Imagine that person is not only bigger than you, but bigger than the trees you see there, reaching all the way to the sky and the stars. He's everywhere yet you can not see him, not directly anyway and not if he wishes it. Get my drift?



With absolutely no knowledge of English, the language is just gibberish. Gibberish with perhaps a distinctive melody, but still gibberish. Chances are, English doesn't sound too different from other European languages to the untrained ear.

It's not too hard to relate because you can see yourself faced with a language you've never heard before. So while we may not know EXACTLY how English sounds to certain people with different linguistic backgrounds, you still have a rough idea of how the experience and confusion is like.

Empathy is not hard. Try it.


The rest of us are just sharing our ideas on this topic, not trying to justify some belief we need to be true for ourselves.... when you want to join the discussion, we will be here.
 

Bowen_B

Banned
MetalAlien said:
The rest of us are just sharing our ideas on this topic, not trying to justify some belief we need to be true for ourselves.... when you want to join the discussion, we will be here.
Yeah I hate that, all the religious do it to every philosophical question; turn it into a question about the existence of god.

I wouldn't care if the whole world became Buddhist or agnostic as there is no scripture in these beliefs that would constrain furthering human knowledge.
To a certain degree I'm sure Buddhism would be a proponnent of furthering it as a small step towards enlightenment as would agnosticism seeing as they are basically unsure of everything including existence.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
MetalAlien said:
To say one idea is unrelated to the other has to be foolishness. Believing in life after death is the leap beyond that which is seen and heard, once you do that there is no limit to what you can believe a possiblity.

Chicken and the egg, I can not believe and you can not prove the ideas didn't arrive at nearly the same time.

See... you're doing it again..... "the belief in God is so mystically entwined with the human spirit.. It was inevitable......." STOP IT.

Saying the belief in an afterlife is connected to the belief in an omnipresent parent-God is WRONG. They are 10s of thousands of years apart. They have no connection, except that they are both very human ideas.

Caveman 1: "Oh no, Gog is dead."

Caveman 2 "But what if he isn't really dead somewhere else! Whoa, did ya think of that?"

Caveman 1 "We must be yearning for the Lord!"
 

MetalAlien

Banned
BocoDragon said:
See... you're doing it again..... "the belief in God is so mystically entwined with the human spirit.. It was inevitable......." STOP IT.

Saying the belief in an afterlife is connected to the belief in an omnipresent parent-God is WRONG. They are 10s of thousands of years apart. They have no connection, except that they are both very human ideas.

Caveman 1: "Oh no, Gog is dead."

Caveman 2 "But what if he isn't really dead somewhere else! Whoa, did ya think of that?"

Caveman 1 "We must be yearning for the Lord!"

I disagree, and I am not saying it's mystical, it's a side effect of a mind capable of abstract thought. I do not need for someone to agree with me to be comfortable with my beliefs... I leave you to yours...without malice I hope.
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
MetalAlien said:
I disagree, and I am not saying it's mystical, it's a side effect of a mind capable of abstract thought. I do not need for someone to agree with me to be comfortable with my beliefs... I leave you to yours...without malice I hope.

Fair enough.

Bowen_B said:
To a certain degree I'm sure Buddhism would be a proponnent of furthering it as a small step towards enlightenment as would agnosticism seeing as they are basically unsure of everything including existence.

True. I don't mind the religions that make no claim about the "end times", the sentience of the universe, the certain taboos of our culture.... and all the other claims that have come from so-called prophets..... Tell a Buddhist monk about evolution, he'd be fascinated. He's not a scientist. No affront to reason, no problem in my eyes.
 

kevm3

Member
Religion has much more purpose than many in this thread are giving it credit for. It has given hope to many in times where they would otherwise be lost.

Something I notice is that some are looking at individuals who are the antithesis of a religion as the ambassador of that religion. Those who kill in the name of Christ or other religious figure are NOT following the ways outlined in the texts in those specific religions.

An interesting phenomenon is the near death experience, in which consciousness is said to have survived after the clinical death of a few people

http://www.near-death.com/
 

way more

Member
MetalAlien said:
imagine a world with no concept of god....

Would we even have bothered to ask any of the interesting questions like why are we here, and what more is there?


I think humans have abused the whole idea of God like they've done to everything else, but It's so engrained in life, it'd be almost impossible to imagine what life would be like without it...

It'd be like trying to wonder what english sounds like to someone who has never heard it.. like the first time you heard japanese or something. They could never know how strange it sounded to you.

I think that is true and one of the only instances where we can give religion credit for progress and development. The creation of Judaism begain the era when people asked why, at least thats what I got out of my single day in Western Phil and Thought (BLOWHARD teacher.) Of course after asking why they did just make stuff up.

What has religion done for us lately would be the next question?
 

BocoDragon

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
kevm3 said:
Religion has much more purpose than many in this thread are giving it credit for. It has given hope to many in times where they would otherwise be lost.

So has morphine.

Can you explain to me why Athiest families are perfectly healthy and happy? Religion is not a requirement of happiness. Not at all. What it *might* be is a mental crutch, a self-serving belief held for personal gain. So is that a good thing?

kevm3 said:
Something I notice is that some are looking at individuals who are the antithesis of a religion as the ambassador of that religion. Those who kill in the name of Christ or other religious figure are NOT following the ways outlined in the texts in those specific religions.

Almost no one fits that criteria, then. Most religious do NOT treat it like a philosophy, but as a superstition they hold that has little effect on their character. Many, many of them are downright amoral despite (or excused by) their religious beliefs.

And to the ones who do fit that criteria.... Was it even relgion? I would say my family adheres to the principles of Jesus (as they are interpreted by modern westerners).... and we're athiests (most of us, anyway... some have a non-Christian theistic belief). We act in moral ways because it suits our well-being.

Jesus didn't really say much that wasn't common sense.... it was the magical origin story and death that converted people. Hardly anyone cares about the philosophy, at least today, except in lip-service. Most importantly, believing in the superstition of the ressurection does not grant you magical moral powers. Religion has no effect on whether someone is good or not.

kevm3 said:
An interesting phenomenon is the near death experience, in which consciousness is said to have survived after the clinical death of a few people

http://www.near-death.com/

That stuff is complete BS. There's a lot in this world that could point to a metaphysical reality... but this isn't it. This proves that the brain invents a fantasy for itself whilst under trauma.... Nice psychology phenomenon, anyway.....
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Bowen_B said:
Also Hitler didn't force any Jews to die, all they had to do was take off their yellow stars and burn the Torah. They would've been saved, also I don't agree with Nazi burning of books.
This is a very inaccurate characterization of the Holocaust. The Jews weren't killed for their beliefs, and they weren't given the opportunity to recant before death. They were systematically exterminated because of Hitler's obsession with them as an unclean race, which he thought was poisoning the purity of the Aryan race.

Nobody can take you seriously as an advocate for eugenics if you are this wrong about the legacy of eugenics. "Hitler didn't force any Jews to die." Really? Don't say that in Germany.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom