How about we figured everything practical out and we're having trouble finding new breakthroughs. Hell, a little girl found the first quick cure to E.Coli by using yogurt. Scientists only use was saying "Ah, she's right! Here's why!" after the fact. They're as bad as ESPN analysts.
-
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??
- Thread starter Ned Flanders
- Start date
- Status
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Bowen_B said:
Not really. Jews definitely have defining features.
Could a jew hide as a German in wartime? Maybe. I saw a movie on it once.
way more
Member
I thought it was pretty well known that Hitler didn't hate Jews as a religion but as an ethnic population. The nazis were crazy about ethnic groups and putting them into categories.
Where are you going with this? Facts aren't going to help you out so you may as well just state your opinion.
Where are you going with this? Facts aren't going to help you out so you may as well just state your opinion.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Bowen_B said:
There's jew the religion. And there's jew the ethnic group.
Hitler killed both.
And really, what non-ethnic jews really converted to jeudaism back when they were minorities in European countries? Unless Madonna was around back then, not a whole lot.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Guileless said:
If only those railroad cars had derailed, like this thread.
I'll be honest, I haven't deeply researched the Holocaust.
I was under the impression that wearing a yellow star was optional for those without Jewish features, I disagree with the systematic killing of all people of this so called "Jewish race" but I appluad the killing of the disabled and those who would optionally label themselves as Jews when it is so obvious how they will be dealt with.
If genetic research were to progress further it wouldn't be neccesary for the disabled to be euthanised but as it currently stands they are a parasite on the welfare of every nation in the world, those with Downs Syndrome don't even fit the scientific defintion of a human so I don't know why they aren't executed at birth...
Also as to my ignorance of Nazi Germany I feel it has no bearing on my viewpoint regarding eugenics.
I feel it would be the same as disregarding a fanatic communist who refuses to acknowledge Stalinism.
Eugenics is generally accepted as a good thing in all animals and plants except when it comes to hummanity, this is a hypocrisy I am free of.
I was under the impression that wearing a yellow star was optional for those without Jewish features, I disagree with the systematic killing of all people of this so called "Jewish race" but I appluad the killing of the disabled and those who would optionally label themselves as Jews when it is so obvious how they will be dealt with.
If genetic research were to progress further it wouldn't be neccesary for the disabled to be euthanised but as it currently stands they are a parasite on the welfare of every nation in the world, those with Downs Syndrome don't even fit the scientific defintion of a human so I don't know why they aren't executed at birth...
Also as to my ignorance of Nazi Germany I feel it has no bearing on my viewpoint regarding eugenics.
I feel it would be the same as disregarding a fanatic communist who refuses to acknowledge Stalinism.
Eugenics is generally accepted as a good thing in all animals and plants except when it comes to hummanity, this is a hypocrisy I am free of.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
Bowen_B said:
Yeah... see there was no choice. you were jewish, you HAD to wear the star. No one is wrong in decrying this.
By the way, the reason eugenics is BS is because it doesn't work. If you're talking about genetically engineering some supermen to do your bidding, well that's one thing, but if you think you're "improving the human race", you aren't.
The only way you can improve it is by keeping it nice and diverse, so that in the event of a disaster, the correct type of humans are available to survive. Picking and choosing can only shape for specific traits, and those traits may, or may not, be completely uselss when crunch time comes.
For example, maybe only jews can survive some form of freaky space radiation. Stupid Hitler, you were going to doom the human race!
Bowen_B said:
And you know this how? Since you hold yourself as one who is scientific, have you personally experimented with these religions and engaged in these experiences to prove them as delusions? Or are you engaging in the same logically fallacious behaviors the religious are often claimed of engaging in: denying or ignoring what they do not understand?
If the beliefs and actions of the religious are 'delusions,' then what is reality?
I definitely don't deny the validity and purposefulness of scientific knowledge and reason. My problem comes when this way of experiencing the world is held as the only valid way.
I'm not saying that choosing a religion and believing in God is the only way to find happiness. But for many, it does bring them happiness.
Assuming there was no God, why would religion be a bad thing? If not religion, there would be another form of 'mental crutch.' If religion is a crutch, what are videogames, music, recreative sex etc.? They all are things to help us pass time and delude us from the reality that we die, and according to most atheists, disappear from existence. Then for some, religion is the sweetest poison to consume before death.
If there is no creator, then there is no real purpose set out for us here on Earth, so what is it anyone's business how they spend their time? Then again what exactly is a mental crutch, and assuming religion is one why would it be bad? What is the 'right knowledge' that is being blocked or what ultimate purpose is being prevented by them practicing their religious beliefs?
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
It's not a matter of "deep research," it's a matter of walking around sense. Your comic ignorance of history and the historical examples of applied eugenics is a great example of why eugenics is a bad idea: its proponents don't think through the logical consequences and ramifications of what they advocate.
Bowen_B said:
eugenics is pretty ****ing abhorrent to espouse given it's segregating social effects. Only espoused by the foolish that don't take the inevitable lashback that would occur.
Much better would be genetic enhancement... that would only really incur the wrath of religious types, so it's perhaps not that great an idea still.
DjangoReinhardt
Thinks he should have been the one to kill Batman's parents.
Phoenix said:
Agreed. It takes people who ignore their capacity for reason to embrace religion and allow it to flourish. People who exchange reality for the comfort of fairy tales are the problem.
The way you apply eugenics as I previously alluded to is similar to the way you apply communism.Guileless said:
It doesn't have to be a Hitler-esque mass murder, it could simply be the breeding of Africans and East Europeans in an attempt to create a human with high strength as well as high speed.
I think the major opposition to eugenics is by anti-racist groups who refuse to acknowledge that humans ARE animals and certain races have certain desirable traits.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
When you give the state the power to control and even end human life in order to serve a utilitarian purpose that it decides on, you tend to end up with things like the Holocaust. Something about human nature I think? Maybe we shouldn't cede those powers to the state, just in case. For example, if I were in charge of strengthening the gene pool, we'd start weeding out people who don't know basic facts of modern history.
Oh yeah well I'd so kill you if this wasn't the internet and you offended my personal point of view through a civil conversation!!!Guileless said:
Look I've been taught the holocaust by 3 different teachers and they always tell me; "the thing about the Holocaust is Judaism is a religion not a race so Hitler was totally confused if he was trying to creating a master race by eliminating a religion."
They illustrated people being given the badges long before anything else and having plenty of time to convert before they were shipped off to concentration camps.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
kevm3 said:
If hapiness is the requirement for goodness, then can I just hook you up to the Matrix and give you some steak? Can I tell you that Bigfoot is out there, and you're a world famous Bigfoot hunter who had his memory erased, and when you find him you're gonna be rich? Would this make you happy?
It's pretty thin to say "it makes me happy to believe in this, so it's gotta be right to believe in it."
kevm3 said:
Because it's not accurate of the world. And when you base decisions based on false information, you come to false conclusions and actions that do not benefit.
It's the square peg of belief in the round hole of reality.
kevm3 said:
The religious need to believe in something that cannot be proven to accept their pleasure. They have to delude themselves into thinking the make-believe is real.
When I sit down to play Sonic, I don't have to think "Sonic has been mandated by the lord. I know this, because my ancestors told me. I will be rewarded for playing when my brainwaves expire."
So basically, apples and oranges. Beliefs and activities.
The videogame is not real. I can even turn it off, walk away from it, and not have it affect my life. I know it's fake. I know it's fleeting. I know it's man-made. I know it's make-believe. That last one is important.
kevm3 said:
See... you aren't born with the "fear of oblivion"... that's a reaction that comes when you are told from birth that there is a heaven, and you are confronted with the liklihood that it is false. You have pain because your expectations are broken.
No expectations about what life is supposed to be, and you don't have to fight against reason to believe in a fairy tale that keeps you going.
kevm3 said:
That's funny. It seems to me that the creator has nothing to do with one's purpose. If the creator's purpose for humanity was for humans to be food for extraterrestrials, would that satisfy you? Would that be the meaning of life? Seems to me like you have always been defining your purpose yourself, and backing it up with your religious beliefs.
kevm3 said:
Again, it's a square peg into a round hole. Bad decisions made from false information.
Like Sept 11th. The hijackers weren't actually getting 72 virgins or getting rewarded by a parent-God by crashing an airplane into a building. They were wrong about reality. They made a bad decision, based on bad information.
Similar false decisions (and far less extreme, of course) are made all the time, based on false relgious beliefs.
kevm3 said:
Beliefs guide your actions. They are our conceptions of the world. We do what we can to learn as much as we can about our world, so we can make better decisions when we're out living it. Good information guides good decisions. Bad information guides bad decisions.
Before science, a prophet's word was as good as any, since there was no one to say otherwise. What happens when a culture holds tight to the words of a prophet? Religion. Bad information, held tightly by a people as a "test of faith"..........
What happens when we actually do have a method for determining truth? Doesn't matter, because the religious have already made up their mind.... And they'll keep making bad decision after bad decision, as a result of their deeply held falsehoods.
Instigator
Banned
MetalAlien said:
Then I guess I find your ideas prosposterous.
I didn't call you names, I posted rebuttals to your ideas. Your whole argument is based on a lack of imagination and empathy. How can I not point it out?
Religion has been misused as a tool to oppress and manipulate people. However, science isn't free from blame either, the manufacture of powerful weapons of death and mutilation has become its killer app. Furthermore, pollution of the environment and depletion of resources may begin to threaten the very ability of the planet to sustain life. Far from being mankind's saviour, scientific knowledge has raised the spectre of a nuclear holocaust.
For sure, science can be put to very good use. In like manner, proper religious teachings, such as the TRUE teachings of God's son Jesus Christ, benefit both those who adhere to them and all who they come in contact with.
For sure, science can be put to very good use. In like manner, proper religious teachings, such as the TRUE teachings of God's son Jesus Christ, benefit both those who adhere to them and all who they come in contact with.
CurseoftheGods
Banned
Yes.
Well, they were wrong. Hitler was, in fact, very against anti-Semitism until he thought of it as against Jewish ethnicity, not the Jewish religion.Bowen_B said:
And, as a point of fact, there IS such a thing as Jewish ethnicity. A person can convert to Judaism as a religion, that is true, but Judaism, unlike Christianity and Islam, does have a specific historical people belonging to it.
I find it interesting that many people, who grew up in religious homes, drop their beliefs or faith around college, in the name of "reason".
To me, that resonates more as a cultural/historical phenomena than anything else. If you go to the university today in America, most of what you'd get is a community of people who strictly a priori assume methodological naturalism. So, the investigation/observation of the world in the typical university in America always already assumes a position of strict naturalism, as employed in the empirical sciences. You just wouldn't find that many professors/students who even question the very idea of methodological naturalism; it is largely assumed and becomes ingrained in a student's train of thought.
So, college students who come from religious background start to have thoughts like: "Well, I guess I don't need religion or God", and eventually, start experimenting with the exhilirating feeling of rebellion or a sort of psychological transcendence in a mask of "reason". What we ought not forget is that there are highly religious folks who are also highly educated and would argue that their religious position in fact, is a motivating factor for learning and working; arguing that methodological naturalism ought not to be central to one's worldview, but as a philosophical attitude when engaging the empirical sciences.
I think, with the rise of quantum mechanics research, there will be a shift towards skepticism about a strict naturalistic worldview. It seems that through quantum physics, people have begun seeing that the natural world may in fact not be a closed system that many have always thought it was (Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty comes to mind). The Born/Einstein debate on antirealism/realism is indicative of the tensions in the scientific world, specifically with respect to the question if we can actually and accurately observe our world even as it stands. Clearly, the prevailing theme in the quantum sciences in our century is this: we are finite. With this in mind, I think it's wise to not suppose that our "reason" is all but finite.
To me, that resonates more as a cultural/historical phenomena than anything else. If you go to the university today in America, most of what you'd get is a community of people who strictly a priori assume methodological naturalism. So, the investigation/observation of the world in the typical university in America always already assumes a position of strict naturalism, as employed in the empirical sciences. You just wouldn't find that many professors/students who even question the very idea of methodological naturalism; it is largely assumed and becomes ingrained in a student's train of thought.
So, college students who come from religious background start to have thoughts like: "Well, I guess I don't need religion or God", and eventually, start experimenting with the exhilirating feeling of rebellion or a sort of psychological transcendence in a mask of "reason". What we ought not forget is that there are highly religious folks who are also highly educated and would argue that their religious position in fact, is a motivating factor for learning and working; arguing that methodological naturalism ought not to be central to one's worldview, but as a philosophical attitude when engaging the empirical sciences.
I think, with the rise of quantum mechanics research, there will be a shift towards skepticism about a strict naturalistic worldview. It seems that through quantum physics, people have begun seeing that the natural world may in fact not be a closed system that many have always thought it was (Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty comes to mind). The Born/Einstein debate on antirealism/realism is indicative of the tensions in the scientific world, specifically with respect to the question if we can actually and accurately observe our world even as it stands. Clearly, the prevailing theme in the quantum sciences in our century is this: we are finite. With this in mind, I think it's wise to not suppose that our "reason" is all but finite.
evilromero
Member
So if I answer your question in the way it was positioned could I say "no"? Or rather "no, it is"? You get the idea.
evilromero
Member
Well, I don't know what college you attended but here at OU we have a very large Christian population. I'd say more so than those who don't hold religion beliefs (which I would position myself as).dasein said:
Oldschoolgamer
The physical form of blasphemy
I'm late to this, so I will just chime in with my two cents. I think that blaming religion for the recent "stifling of human progress" (whatever that may be), is bs. Every individual has free thought, and the ability to do whatever they may please. We also have something called church and state. Now, even though that exists, to many free thinking individuals, skew the lines and bend towards (sometimes) their religious backgrounds, not because that is how they feel, but, because that is where their support lies. Its the weak minded individual, that falls prey to the traps of politics, not the faith in which he came from.
Now, as for the religion bashing done here...yea, I am agnostic, but both sides hold some of the most ignorant and hypocritical people I have ever come across.
Now, as for the religion bashing done here...yea, I am agnostic, but both sides hold some of the most ignorant and hypocritical people I have ever come across.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has nothing to do with whether or not the "natural world" is a closed system. The term "closed system" is used when a conservation principle can be applied; Heisenberg's principle is a fundamental limit on simultaneous knowledge of observables.dasein said:
It isn't much of a debate, considering both are dead.
You weren't accurate with your summation about the realism/antirealism "debate," by the way. The debate isn't about whether we can "actually and accurately observe" physical things -- the debate is about whether there is a noumenal reality (to use Kant's term) apart from our observations, and if so, whether it is possible to perceive that reality without our measurements or perceptions affecting it.
The reason that I put "debate" in quotes is that experiments done by Bell a few decades ago have been very clear: quantum mechanics, as currently formulated, is incompatible with a hidden variable theory ("realism") as put forward by Einstein, et al. It is certainly possible that quantum mechanics is WRONG as currently formulated...however, it has been extensively verified through prediction and experimental confirmation, so you'd have some real work to do to propose a new theory consistent with the old results AND conforming to a realist interpretation.
I agree that scientists -- hell, people in general -- don't consider the fundamental limitations of their own minds enough as a factor in what they see and understand. However, if you're taking this line of argument to help defend religion, I think you ought to reconsider. If we aren't supposed to put too much faith in our empirical observations and reasoning (sorry for the pun), which are at least things we can verify through experiment, then why should we put any faith in our ability to understand a being which (if extant) would be so far beyond human experience and limitations? If you really want to take the epistemological stance that quantum physics is beyond our minds' ability to grasp, then God is way, way beyond. Congratulations, you're now a strong agnostic!
I disagree with the original thesis in the sense that
a) Progress isnt being stifled completely
and
b) This isnt a recent phenomenon.
However, I completely agree with the sentiment behind it. I was jus splitting hairs in the first line
Religion is fundamentally, and almost universally, an impediment to scientific and technological progress. It *never* seeks to answer why, whereas scientific method, which is continually, though not uniformly criticised by religion - seeks impartially to find out the truth. There is no real comparison between the two though. Science is not an alternative or counterpart to religion, nor is it a belief.
A scientist, who accepts theories and evidence supporting say, quantum theory or thermodynamics, will have no qualms about those theories being disproven if a more rigorous, accurate and reliable theory is developed, or the theory itself is discredited by some contradiction.
A devout theist, with faith, will not necessarily - and probably never - turn from their religious belief even if there exists absolute and irrefutable proof that there is no god, no afterlife and no purpose to their belief.
I see religion as a means of filling the gaps of human understanding - when people couldnt explain something they attributed the unknown to some higher power. The more we learn, the more we see that there is no higher power - just more to learn. The origins of gods are purely in the human minds, propogated by societal brainwashing en masse, ingrained into childrens' minds and surviving like some viral fragment attached to our DNA - ultimate survival through memes not genes.
I think the fact that religious beliefs are now influencing some major elements of public policy is just another wave in the continuous tide of human stupidity - letting emotions and ingrained beliefs prevail over reason. But sure as Galileo and Copernicus, Archimedes and Einstein showed through method that the world was not as we had made it up to be - I certainly think there is a capacity for people to "get over it" and rid ourselves of religion some time in the distant future. If we dont, we'll die.
edit and addendum:
I think that religion owes its roots to the human mind. There is no rational reason to think that god has been doing miracles here on earth so we might perceive it. Ithink the main religions today are basically cults that survived. We know how strongly cult members can believe what they are told. Christiantity, Islam, Judaisim - for all we know these religions, and even the very concept of gods - may have arisen from people like David Koresh when there were no news media or skeptics present to debunk their little deluded ideas. It's all in the mind.
a) Progress isnt being stifled completely
and
b) This isnt a recent phenomenon.
However, I completely agree with the sentiment behind it. I was jus splitting hairs in the first line
Religion is fundamentally, and almost universally, an impediment to scientific and technological progress. It *never* seeks to answer why, whereas scientific method, which is continually, though not uniformly criticised by religion - seeks impartially to find out the truth. There is no real comparison between the two though. Science is not an alternative or counterpart to religion, nor is it a belief.
A scientist, who accepts theories and evidence supporting say, quantum theory or thermodynamics, will have no qualms about those theories being disproven if a more rigorous, accurate and reliable theory is developed, or the theory itself is discredited by some contradiction.
A devout theist, with faith, will not necessarily - and probably never - turn from their religious belief even if there exists absolute and irrefutable proof that there is no god, no afterlife and no purpose to their belief.
I see religion as a means of filling the gaps of human understanding - when people couldnt explain something they attributed the unknown to some higher power. The more we learn, the more we see that there is no higher power - just more to learn. The origins of gods are purely in the human minds, propogated by societal brainwashing en masse, ingrained into childrens' minds and surviving like some viral fragment attached to our DNA - ultimate survival through memes not genes.
I think the fact that religious beliefs are now influencing some major elements of public policy is just another wave in the continuous tide of human stupidity - letting emotions and ingrained beliefs prevail over reason. But sure as Galileo and Copernicus, Archimedes and Einstein showed through method that the world was not as we had made it up to be - I certainly think there is a capacity for people to "get over it" and rid ourselves of religion some time in the distant future. If we dont, we'll die.
edit and addendum:
I think that religion owes its roots to the human mind. There is no rational reason to think that god has been doing miracles here on earth so we might perceive it. Ithink the main religions today are basically cults that survived. We know how strongly cult members can believe what they are told. Christiantity, Islam, Judaisim - for all we know these religions, and even the very concept of gods - may have arisen from people like David Koresh when there were no news media or skeptics present to debunk their little deluded ideas. It's all in the mind.
- Status