Can you answer this?

[firedragon]

You are broadening the scope of what was being discussed. The point being debated was the difference between a theocratic government in which religious law is directly codified into the laws and statutes of the government and a secular government in which the laws and statutes are created by members of society. I am arguing that although all forms of government have problems, a theocratic form of government is more resistant to change and improvement.

Based on what study are you saying this? Can you provide some history or/and examples that a theocracy is more resistant to change and improvement what ever you mean by improvement?

And certainly, in a purely secular government, the values and religious beliefs of society members will inform and affect the laws that they create, but it is clear that throughout history, the values shared by a society change and evolve and can move beyond stagnant, unchanging religious scripture.

Both influence each other.

I find that these statements are in no way supported by the historical record. That people who hold religious beliefs contribute to the advancement of science in no way means that religion drives scientific discovery or is compatible with it.

You made a strawman argument. I didnt say "religion makes advancement of science". But you should do a bit of study on this subject.

Science advances despite religion, not because of it.

Any research?

As long as religion creates myths about the unknown, that which lies beyond our understanding, science cannot help but clash with those myths as our scientific understanding continually expands into the unknown.

Any research?

 

[KerimF]

Whoever believes blindly whatever unknown scientists (unknown or stranger to the hearer) may say, he is just a believer of another religion called science and its prophets are his great scientists. (Added: Actually, every worldwide propaganda, mainly in these days, are based on this well-known fact... by the ones behind it).

Similarly, those who are raised to believe in the existence of 'The People' that rules in a secular ruling system while actually their system is created, run and supervised always by a powerful rich group, become faithful believers/followers to their rulers even more than believers are supposed to be towards their God.

Who have ears will hear!

 

[MikeF]

You made a strawman argument. I didnt say "religion makes advancement of science". But you should do a bit of study on this subject.

My apologies for introducing a strawman argument. You suggest that I should research the subject of religion making the advancement of science. Why? What is your position? If my stated position is that religion either inhibits or is indifferent to science, do you take the opposite view, that religion historically encourages scientific discovery and the subsequent acceptance of those discoveries?

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
As long as religion creates myths about the unknown, that which lies beyond our understanding, science cannot help but clash with those myths as our scientific understanding continually expands into the unknown.

Any research?

You might find the book "The Evolution of God", by Robert Wright, an interesting read. The book tracks the evolution of religious belief from its earliest forms found in Animism and Shamanism through to the monotheistic Abrahamic religions.

For me, I see a direct correlation between the type and sophistication of religious or supernatural beliefs and humanities level of knowledge and understanding of the world and ourselves.

And I would think the scientific theories of the Big Bang and Evolution clashing with the creation myths of a multitude of religions would constitute sufficient documentation of a clash.

 

[firedragon]

And I would think the scientific theories of the Big Bang and Evolution clashing with the creation myths of a multitude of religions would constitute sufficient documentation of a clash.

Do you know what the theory of evolution was called before Darwin?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In every new age, the religion at the narrow gate is the new religion God wants us to find and follow, and it is the gate that leads to eternal life. If they are atheists they do not like the idea of messengers of God or they think they are all phonies.

Again that is your view. I would not give two hoots for it. That there is a god, and that he sends messengers and new religions. It is a person's ego or greed that creates new religions. Why would atheists believe in theist verbiage?

 

[MikeF]

Do you know what the theory of evolution was called before Darwin?

Transformism?
Why do you ask? Discussion and speculation on the origin of species is documented as far back as the Presocratic Atomist philosophers of Ancient Greece.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Whoever believes blindly whatever unknown scientists (unknown or stranger to the hearer) may say, he is just a believer of another religion called science and its prophets are his great scientists.

Blind belief is not appreciated in science. Whenever a scientific theory is described, its short-comings are also described. In scientific method, that extends to history also theories are always challenged. This is something that Abrahamic religions do not do. Hinduism and Buddhism delight in criticism and discussion.

 

[firedragon]

Transformism?
Why do you ask? Discussion and speculation on the origin of species is documented as far back as the Presocratic Atomist philosophers of Ancient Greece.

I didn’t ask who thought of it first. Maybe you just don’t like this discussion since you have already made statements about evolution, creation myth and conflicts and so on.

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
You are broadening the scope of what was being discussed. The point being debated was the difference between a theocratic government in which religious law is directly codified into the laws and statutes of the government and a secular government in which the laws and statutes are created by members of society. I am arguing that although all forms of government have problems, a theocratic form of government is more resistant to change and improvement.

Based on what study are you saying this? Can you provide some history or/and examples that a theocracy is more resistant to change and improvement what ever you mean by improvement?

You are absolutely right to flag my use of the word 'improvement'. Any concept of a correct, best, ideal form of government is purely subjective and dependent on how one balances the roles and functions of government and the needs and wants of the governed.

Absent our mutual agreement on the goals of a political system we really can't discuss merits or deficiencies.

My comments reflect my subjective values, wants, and desires for a political system.

 

[MikeF]

I didn’t ask who thought of it first. Maybe you just don’t like this discussion since you have already made statements about evolution, creation myth and conflicts and so on.

No, I'm fine.
I thought you asked me what the theory of evolution was called before Darwin and I answered Transformism. Was I wrong? What is the correct answer?

 

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
Science advances despite religion, not because of it.

Any research?

Do you not think this comment a tad flippant and disingenuous? Are you completely unaware of examples whereby religious institutions have opposed new ideas and conclusions about the world and how it functions? Are you unaware of the effect and use of heresy laws throughout history? How simply the fear of heretical prosecution has inhibited and delayed scientific publication or open and free discussion?

On the flip-side, I am unaware of religious scriptures that promote scientific principles of inquiry, no scriptures that promote critical thinking and reasoned skepticism of their stated beliefs and tenets and explanations of the world. As a matter of fact, unquestioning faith seems to be called for instead.

 

[firedragon]

No, I'm fine.
I thought you asked me what the theory of evolution was called before Darwin and I answered Transformism. Was I wrong? What is the correct answer?

Transformism is different to Darwinian evolution. I am pretty sure you know what it is. It means though species evolve, forms are argued to have gone extinct tue to their nature to collapse and imperfections. With that itself you would note that it conflicts with selection. Ancestries won't have a parting whatsoever.

Oh many people find this offensive for what ever strange reason, theists and atheists alike, but the theory of evolution was called the Muhammedan Theory by the western scientists and philosophers and as Atthathweer by the Arabs. And you should know that the motivation for the development of these ideas in times as early as the 14th century by theologians like Ibne Handhoon in lets say his book called the development or prologue shows very clearly his motivation to understand human evolution from an ape was due to the understanding that stems from God, beginning of species, and evolution to the current "where we are".

Yet, you have already brought up "creation myth", conflict with science, evolution and all of that usually heard polemics a lot of people keep repeating without proper research. I dont know really if any of this is fruitful thus.

 

[firedragon]

Do you not think this comment a tad flippant and disingenuous?

That kind of comment is of course expected. Pretty common.

Are you completely unaware of examples whereby religious institutions have opposed new ideas and conclusions about the world and how it functions?

Nope. Not unaware. But that is a shift of burden of proof. When you make a claim, it is you who should be able to provide some kind of research you had done to prove your claim. Anyway, maybe you even forgot your claim already.

How simply the fear of heretical prosecution has inhibited and delayed scientific publication or open and free discussion?

Not general.

On the flip-side, I am unaware of religious scriptures that promote scientific principles of inquiry,

Yes. You are unaware.

no scriptures that promote critical thinking and reasoned skepticism of their stated beliefs and tenets and explanations of the world.

You are unaware.

As a matter of fact, unquestioning faith seems to be called for instead.

Sometimes. Not always. Maybe a little bit of time invested in this matter might assist.

If you intend to just make general comments about religions and theologies and scripture etc etc like this, it is pretty normal and maybe not your fault. But try to get out of that.

 

[MikeF]

Transformism is different to Darwinian evolution. I am pretty sure you know what it is. It means though species evolve, forms are argued to have gone extinct tue to their nature to collapse and imperfections. With that itself you would note that it conflicts with selection. Ancestries won't have a parting whatsoever.

Oh many people find this offensive for what ever strange reason, theists and atheists alike, but the theory of evolution was called the Muhammedan Theory by the western scientists and philosophers and as Atthathweer by the Arabs. And you should know that the motivation for the development of these ideas in times as early as the 14th century by theologians like Ibne Handhoon in lets say his book called the development or prologue shows very clearly his motivation to understand human evolution from an ape was due to the understanding that stems from God, beginning of species, and evolution to the current "where we are".

Yet, you have already brought up "creation myth", conflict with science, evolution and all of that usually heard polemics a lot of people keep repeating without proper research. I dont know really if any of this is fruitful thus.

Thank you for responding. I am not familiar with Muhammedan Theory nor Atthathweer. I will look into it.

Since I am wholly unfamiliar with the theologian Ibne Handhoon, are you saying that he proposed a theory of evolution comparable to that of Darwin, and that his theory was in compliance and conformed to the scriptures he based his religious beliefs on? Which scriptures?

 

[firedragon]

Thank you for responding. I am not familiar with Muhammedan Theory nor Atthathweer. I will look into it.

Since I am wholly unfamiliar with the theologian Ibne Handhoon, are you saying that he proposed a theory of evolution comparable to that of Darwin, and that his theory was in compliance and conformed to the scriptures he based his religious beliefs on? Which scriptures?

Well. You should be aware for sure that Darwin gave a mechanism, not evolution. Anyway, Ibne Haldhoon believed in evolution as I had explained already. And yes, he was a theologian who believed conformation of his theories and sciences with the scripture, vis a vis, the Quran. Well, in fact there were others five hundred years before him as well. This is not some isolated special thing. The fact remains that the usual narration is a western anecdotal fallacy.

 

[Moonjuice]

And it’s only a problem if practitioners of each are primarily concerned with what separates them, rather than with what unites them.

Maybe I’m wrong here, but it seems clear that adherents to the worlds major religions are not primarily concerned with what unites them. History has certainly proven that. I still think it’s obviously impossible for competing monotheistic god claims to both be correct, especially when the core beliefs are in direct opposition of each other.

 

[Trailblazer]

Maybe I’m wrong here, but it seems clear that adherents to the worlds major religions are not primarily concerned with what unites them. History has certainly proven that.

No, you are not wrong. The worlds major religions do not care about unity, and certain religions only care about being right. The Baha'i Faith is the only major religion that cares about unity because establishing unity was the primary mission of Baha'u'llah. You might not consider it a major religion since it is still very small in comparison to the older religions but it is considered by academics as a world religion, now prominently on the world stage and gaining more momentum every day.

The theme of unity is found throughout the Baha'i Writings, below are only a couple of examples.

“The utterance of God is a lamp, whose light is these words: Ye are the fruits of one tree, and the leaves of one branch. Deal ye one with another with the utmost love and harmony, with friendliness and fellowship. He Who is the Day Star of Truth beareth Me witness! So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth. The one true God, He Who knoweth all things, Himself testifieth to the truth of these words.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 288

“My object is none other than the betterment of the world and the tranquillity of its peoples. The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded.” Gleanings, p. 286

 

[RestlessSoul]

Maybe I’m wrong here, but it seems clear that adherents to the worlds major religions are not primarily concerned with what unites them. History has certainly proven that. I still think it’s obviously impossible for competing monotheistic god claims to both be correct, especially when the core beliefs are in direct opposition of each other.

Depends where you look really. Look for dissent, and of course you'll find it. Look for fraternity and understanding and you'll find that too

 

[MikeF]

Well. You should be aware for sure that Darwin gave a mechanism, not evolution.

My apologies, but I don't understand this sentence. What do you mean when you say Darwin did not give evolution? Is 'give' the right verb? Certainly you would not say that anyone has given evolution. What if we use the word 'describe'. Would you say Darwin described evolution? Or better yet, how about explained, that Darwin explained and gave evidence to support the existence and function of the natural process we label Evolution.

Anyway, Ibne Haldhoon believed in evolution as I had explained already. And yes, he was a theologian who believed conformation of his theories and sciences with the scripture, vis a vis, the Quran. Well, in fact there were others five hundred years before him as well. This is not some isolated special thing. The fact remains that the usual narration is a western anecdotal fallacy.

I enjoyed looking into the person you call, Ibne Haldhoon. Thank you for bringing him to my attention. I assume that you are talking about Abū Zayd ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān ibn Muḥammad ibn Khaldūn al-Ḥaḍramī, or Ibn Khaldun, who lived from 1332 to 1406 CE. If this is not the same person you referenced, please let me know.

Based on the little I learned, I would not have characterized Ibn Khaldun as a theologian. Like many pre-modern great thinkers, he was a polymath with a wide range of interests. He could be described as a politician/statesman, philosopher, sociologist, and historian. I only saw reference to two minor works on solely theological topic and would not describe his main interest as theological by any means.

You want to make the argument that religion influences science positively, and drives scientific discovery, but the drive to know, understand, and explore the world speaks to the personality and psychology of the person engaged in scientific exploration, not religious affiliation. These individuals would be driven to know and understand regardless of the religious tradition they were raised in, be it Christianity for Descartes, Greek Pantheon for Socrates, Islam for Ibn Khaldun, Hinduism for Aryabhata.

You seem to take issue with my term "creation myth". Fine. However, many religions have scriptural explanations for how the cosmos came into being and when and how human beings came into existence. You seem to be arguing that there is a religious belief system who's explanations for how the cosmos was created and how human beings came into existence is in complete concordance with our modern scientific understanding of how the cosmos began/functions and how human beings began. I would love to know to which religion you refer.

Or are you saying that there is a religious belief system that declares that it is a complete mystery how the cosmos came into being and how human beings came into existence and that this religious belief system directs its adherents to explore and discover the origins and workings of the cosmos and the origin of humanity. If so, please identify.