Is religion making us all stupid ?

[icehorse]

Well I cannot agree, and I really didn't think you would say that ?.

With which aspect do you disagree?

 

[psychoslice]

With which aspect do you disagree?

reading the bible literally, I just cannot understand anyone truly doing that, there has been so many changes to the bible over many years and much of the bible contradicts itself which is a known fact.

 

[psychoslice]

“People sometimes ask me , what religion are you ? i always answer by saying, ''i am a little part of all religions and and a big part of no religion”. Osho

 

[icehorse]

reading the bible literally, I just cannot understand anyone truly doing that, there has been so many changes to the bible over many years and much of the bible contradicts itself which is a known fact.

Just a few examples:

- i suspect that a literal reading of the bible fuels a fair amount of climate change denial.
- I suspect that a literal reading of the quran fuels a fain amount of Islamic misogyny (across many cultures)

 

[psychoslice]

Just a few examples:

- i suspect that a literal reading of the bible fuels a fair amount of climate change denial.
- I suspect that a literal reading of the quran fuels a fain amount of Islamic misogyny (across many cultures)

I don't know about all that but it certainly has caused division among believes and in some cases death, all because of taking the scriptures literal, shame.

 

[Jedster]

I don't know about all that but it certainly has caused division among believes and in some cases death, all because of taking the scriptures literal, shame.

That is because many believers see their book as the absolute truth, so what ever is in their particular book must be true.
The better parts of most scriptures(that I have read) can be seen as signposts to something 'greater';but people confuse the signpost with the destination and deify the book.
It is ironic that many believers accuse others of idol worship when they themselves worship the words in a book.

They are obviously too scared to look within(as per your Osho quote).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So you say, but I cannot fully agree with you, it was the scientific thinking that help bring us out of the so called dark-ages, that's a fact. no matter what you believe.

The "dark ages" were largely a modern historical construct deliberately contrived to indicate the intellectual sterility imagined to result from the spread of Christianity and the church. In reality, there was no such time (no "dark period' that is particularly distinct from the regular waxings and wanings of cultural accomplishments of various types of various cultures over various periods). The church was responsible for the creation of universities and modern scholarship, learning, higher education, etc,. more generally. Christian thought was instrumental in bringing about the "scientific thinking" you refer to. The founders of the scientific endeavor generally expressly and often implicitly drew upon Christian or related theology and similar approaches to religious thought in order both to emerge and to be sustained. Perhaps the most important approach to understanding physical systems across all branches of physics (classical, quantum, particle, continuum, statistical, condensed matter, etc.), namely that of the concept of "action" as formalized in variational calculus and in particular relying upon the Euler-Lagrange equation and "least action" was fundamentally based upon a theological assumption:

“[Pierre-Louis de Maupertuis] believed that nature always acted in such a way as to minimize something. For mechanics, he postulated that this something, that he termed the action, was the product of mass, speed and distance. He attempted to furnish a theological foundation for mechanics. Maupertuis claimed to obtain several experimentally verifiable results from his principle, but often imprecisely and with a certain amount of 'fudging'. However, Euler and Lagrange gave precise, mathematical formulations of Maupertuis' vague idea. For example, if a body is constrained to the surface of a sphere and an impulse is imparted to that body, it will move from its initial location to its final position along that path (on the surface of the sphere) that requires the least transit time. Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property. In Euler's program all the laws of nature should be derivable from this principle of maximum or minimum.” pp. 166-7 (emphasis added)
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics. Cambridge University Press.

Newtonian mechanics, and the entire concept of "laws of physics" also emerged from and flourished because they were theological in nature, and even today this theological component remains:

"Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians."
Davies, P. (2014). “Universe from Bit”. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregerson (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.

The very existence of the scientific endeavor depended upon the evolution of Christian thought (not that it needed to, as we can easily imagine other ways in which sufficient criteria might be satisfied such that "science" might have emerged elsewhere). True, this wouldn't have been possible without the incorporation of Greek thought into scholasticism, along with various other non-Christian contributions as well as sufficient developments within Western thought more generally (and luck!), but the emergence of science was fundamentally tied to a particular religious worldview it absolutely depended upon.

 

[Timothy Bryce]

Can't remember whether I actually responded to this thread but, if I had to give a "yes or no" answer, it would be a resounding "YES".

Western Civilization has had some of the finest minds to ever grace the planet dating back 5000+ years.

The sheer amount of damage religion has done in tearing down philosophy, historical records, alternative trains of thought that will literally never be recovered is astounding and disgusting to think about.

We will never recover from the amount of damage religion has inflicted on humanity's intellectual capacity because the wounds really are that severe and, as we discuss the present day, these wounds have never really been effectively tended to.

Increased secularism over the last century or two and the separation of church and state is like putting a band aid on an arm that has been torn completely from its socket.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The very existence of the scientific endeavor depended upon the evolution of Christian thought

An examination of the evidence would suggest Christianity has been a 'double edged sword'. While at times promoting science it has also resisted. Thats why the Ptolemaic model existed until Copernican heliocentrism during the 16th Century. The Church were not happy with Galileo and he was under house arrest. The Christian Church resisted, not promoted this scientific advancement because it did not fit the existing Christian world view. In a similar manner Christianity has resisted evolutionary theory. It has often clung tenaciouly to a literal heaven up in the skies, and hell below the earth, Creationism, and a literally ressurrected Jesus. It struggles to acknowledge an Islamic Golden age and the pivitol contribution made to the Europe. It has also resisted important social change such as abolition of slavery, gender equality, the fundamental oneness of humanity, and the pivotal roles other faiths have played in humanitys' development. On the otherhand enlightened Christian thinkers have also been on the cutting edge and played a pivitol role in overcoming barriers to better understanding socially, morally, and scientifically.

I think the fundamental problem is when religion fails to adapt to science because it does not fit the religious world view. If religious adherents start trying to distort the scientific evidence to fit the religious world view then this is superstition.

"It (humanity) cannot fly with one wing alone. If it tries to fly with the wing of religion alone it will land in the quagmire of superstition, and if it tries to fly with the wing of science alone it will end in the despairing slough of materialism."

"Great indeed is the claim of scientists and craftsmen on the peoples of the world...in truth, knowledge is a veritable treasure for man, and a source of glory..."
From the Baha'i writings

 

[omega2xx]

Thanks, I was shot through the ankle which I almost lost, the bones were blown to pieces, I now have no movement in the joint, and suffer pain just about everyday, but it could have been worse.

I am going to mention your tag line.

Is there such a thing as spiritual truth?

If so, can spiritual truth be found outside a book that teaches it?

 

[icehorse]

I am going to mention your tag line.

Is there such a thing as spiritual truth?

If so, can spiritual truth be found outside a book that teaches it?

There is lots of debate concerning what "spiritual" means, and to be fair I have to acknowledge that for many it is linked to religion. But I think it should be detached from religion, as it can easily stand on its own when discussing the nonmaterial and intangible.

So of course, no book is necessary

 

[omega2xx]

There is lots of debate concerning what "spiritual" means, and to be fair I have to acknowledge that for many it is linked to religion. But I think it should be detached from religion, as it can easily stand on its own when discussing the nonmaterial and intangible.

I basically agree with you except IMO, it must be supported from the Bible. A true spiritual concept must support a religious truth with a universal application----you must be born again. Most i Hear from non-believers have no application for me, and they only apply to their personal FEELING to support it.

So of course, no book is necessary

That depends of it the book is true or not. At least I have something written to support my spiritual concepts, and the do have a universal application.

What is your favorite spiritual concept?

 

[icehorse]

That depends of it the book is true or not. At least I have something written to support my spiritual concepts, and the do have a universal application.

What is your favorite spiritual concept?

The axiom I use (not created by me), is that "it's good to promote the well being of conscious creatures for as many generations as possible". Apart from that, I value what science values, evidence, critical thinking, parsimony and so on.

So a single book could codify all of that and provide a solid foundation for a *spiritual* life, but the world's most popular scripture tends to value different things than what I value. For example, much of scripture values the promise of an afterlife over the quality of our current life.

 

[omega2xx]

The axiom I use (not created by me), is that "it's good to promote the well being of conscious creatures for as many generations as possible". Apart from that, I value what science values, evidence, critical thinking, parsimony and so on.

Unless you are a vegetarian or a vegan, the Bible basically teaches that. Beef and dairy products if used without excess are good for us.

So a single book could codify all of that and provide a solid foundation for a *spiritual* life, but the world's most popular scripture tends to value different things than what I value. For example, much of scripture values the promise of an afterlife over the quality of our current life.

Actually the Bible does both. It stresses needing to help our fellow man is needed to have a quality of live on earth---I have come that they may have life and have abundantly---Jn 10:10. God give us hope in this life. An after lie is certainly more comforting than what to e3xpect at death for non-believers.

 

[icehorse]

Unless you are a vegetarian or a vegan, the Bible basically teaches that. Beef and dairy products if used without excess are good for us.

Actually the Bible does both. It stresses needing to help our fellow man is needed to have a quality of live on earth---I have come that they may have life and have abundantly---Jn 10:10. God give us hope in this life. An after lie is certainly more comforting than what to e3xpect at death for non-believers.

Many Christians interpret the Bible as instructing them to "take no care for the morrow", and to pillage the planet.

 

[psychoslice]

That is because many believers see their book as the absolute truth, so what ever is in their particular book must be true.
The better parts of most scriptures(that I have read) can be seen as signposts to something 'greater';but people confuse the signpost with the destination and deify the book.
It is ironic that many believers accuse others of idol worship when they themselves worship the words in a book.

They are obviously too scared to look within(as per your Osho quote).

Wonderfuly said.

 

[omega2xx]

Many Christians interpret the Bible as instructing them to "take no care for the morrow", and to pillage the planet.

Then they interpret it r, and many do not interpret it that way. Only a few, if any. Do you have a link that supports your accusation?

 

[psychoslice]

The "dark ages" were largely a modern historical construct deliberately contrived to indicate the intellectual sterility imagined to result from the spread of Christianity and the church. In reality, there was no such time (no "dark period' that is particularly distinct from the regular waxings and wanings of cultural accomplishments of various types of various cultures over various periods). The church was responsible for the creation of universities and modern scholarship, learning, higher education, etc,. more generally. Christian thought was instrumental in bringing about the "scientific thinking" you refer to. The founders of the scientific endeavor generally expressly and often implicitly drew upon Christian or related theology and similar approaches to religious thought in order both to emerge and to be sustained. Perhaps the most important approach to understanding physical systems across all branches of physics (classical, quantum, particle, continuum, statistical, condensed matter, etc.), namely that of the concept of "action" as formalized in variational calculus and in particular relying upon the Euler-Lagrange equation and "least action" was fundamentally based upon a theological assumption:

“[Pierre-Louis de Maupertuis] believed that nature always acted in such a way as to minimize something. For mechanics, he postulated that this something, that he termed the action, was the product of mass, speed and distance. He attempted to furnish a theological foundation for mechanics. Maupertuis claimed to obtain several experimentally verifiable results from his principle, but often imprecisely and with a certain amount of 'fudging'. However, Euler and Lagrange gave precise, mathematical formulations of Maupertuis' vague idea. For example, if a body is constrained to the surface of a sphere and an impulse is imparted to that body, it will move from its initial location to its final position along that path (on the surface of the sphere) that requires the least transit time. Euler maintained the theological view of Maupertuis and held that phenomena could be explained not only in terms of causes but also in terms of purpose. He believed that, since the universe was the creation of a perfect God, nothing could happen in nature that did not exhibit this maximum or minimum property. In Euler's program all the laws of nature should be derivable from this principle of maximum or minimum.” pp. 166-7 (emphasis added)
Cushing, J. T. (1998). Philosophical Concepts in Physics. Cambridge University Press.

Newtonian mechanics, and the entire concept of "laws of physics" also emerged from and flourished because they were theological in nature, and even today this theological component remains:

"Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the “theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance, are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science and theologians."
Davies, P. (2014). “Universe from Bit”. In P. Davies & N. H. Gregerson (Eds.) Information and the Nature of Reality: From Physics to Metaphysics (pp. 83-117). Cambridge University Press.

The very existence of the scientific endeavor depended upon the evolution of Christian thought (not that it needed to, as we can easily imagine other ways in which sufficient criteria might be satisfied such that "science" might have emerged elsewhere). True, this wouldn't have been possible without the incorporation of Greek thought into scholasticism, along with various other non-Christian contributions as well as sufficient developments within Western thought more generally (and luck!), but the emergence of science was fundamentally tied to a particular religious worldview it absolutely depended upon.

There maybe some truth in that but looking at religion today you would never believe that.

 

[psychoslice]

I am going to mention your tag line.

Is there such a thing as spiritual truth?

If so, can spiritual truth be found outside a book that teaches it?

So called spiritual truth is only found within, books or scripture can point the way, but as you said people make an idol of the written words.

 

[omega2xx]

So called spiritual truth is only found within, books or scripture can point the way, but as you said people make an idol of the written words.

I never said people make an idol of the written word.