Oppression of progress

[Twiglet04]

Religious people (especially Christians) do you believe that it is God's will for the progress of mankind to be slowed and halted by religion, as it has been both through history (Galileo's house arrest, La Purga, Copernicus etc) and today (genetic engineering etc)? Just a thought.


I do not believe that the same God that has endowed us with reason and intellect intends for us to forego their use - Galileo

 

[emptybe]

I believe it's getting better with the anti-science folks and a new age is coming.:yes:

It's not nearly as bad as it used to be. Or maybe it is and it's just the tactics for stalling progress have changed?

What do you think?

 

[Meow Mix]

I believe it's getting better with the anti-science folks and a new age is coming.:yes:

It's not nearly as bad as it used to be. Or maybe it is and it's just the tactics for stalling progress have changed?

What do you think?

I'm not sure about this. It may be my subjective "oh no" reflex, but it appears to me that scientific literacy is increasingly abysmal and the widening divide between political and religious ideology in grassroots movements in several countries has been lately increasing the furor of anti-intellectualism. Whether it's an increase in numbers or simply an increase in the amount of press coverage/loudness I'm not sure, but there's something disturbing about the fact that a lot of public television is chock full of absolute pseudoscientific/pseudohistoric garbage.

I'm not sure how much a culture can be judged by what it watches, but something tells me that it doesn't bode well for the intellectual future of at least those who avidly watch the asinine tripe some channels are broadcasting.

History channel comes to mind with all the nescient "there used to exist advanced civilizations and/or aliens" shows, there's all those ridiculous "ghost hunter" shows, there's general "paranormal" shows -- the scientific literacy of mainstream television literally plummeted a hundred IQ points sometime in the last decade.

Edit: I know it's off topic, but the fact that "Jersey Shore" is watched and loved by any number of Homo sapiens literally makes me abhor being a member of the species.

In my off-topic opinion, "celebrity culture" is akin to sociocultural and intellectual suicide for a culture; especially when it would take a stadium full of said celebrities to match the IQ of a barn mouse.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not sure about this. It may be my subjective "oh no" reflex, but it appears to me that scientific literacy is increasingly abysmal and the widening divide between political and religious ideology in grassroots movements in several countries has been lately increasing the furor of anti-intellectualism. Whether it's an increase in numbers or simply an increase in the amount of press coverage/loudness I'm not sure, but there's something disturbing about the fact that a lot of public television is chock full of absolute pseudoscientific/pseudohistoric garbage.

I'm not sure how much a culture can be judged by what it watches, but something tells me that it doesn't bode well for the intellectual future of at least those who avidly watch the asinine tripe some channels are broadcasting.

History channel comes to mind with all the nescient "there used to exist advanced civilizations and/or aliens" shows, there's all those ridiculous "ghost hunter" shows, there's general "paranormal" shows -- the scientific literacy of mainstream television literally plummeted a hundred IQ points sometime in the last decade.

Edit: I know it's off topic, but the fact that "Jersey Shore" is watched and loved by any number of Homo sapiens literally makes me abhor being a member of the species.

In my off-topic opinion, "celebrity culture" is akin to sociocultural and intellectual suicide for a culture; especially when it would take a stadium full of said celebrities to match the IQ of a barn mouse.

its all proof of how uncivilized we really are, when they say our DNA is within %3 of a chimp. I cant find one reason to argue.

you might add it sucks the USA quit trying to advance some science due to budget cuts and the hadron collider was built overseas.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm not sure about this. It may be my subjective "oh no" reflex, but it appears to me that scientific literacy is increasingly abysmal and the widening divide between political and religious ideology in grassroots movements in several countries has been lately increasing the furor of anti-intellectualism. Whether it's an increase in numbers or simply an increase in the amount of press coverage/loudness I'm not sure, but there's something disturbing about the fact that a lot of public television is chock full of absolute pseudoscientific/pseudohistoric garbage.

I'm not sure how much a culture can be judged by what it watches, but something tells me that it doesn't bode well for the intellectual future of at least those who avidly watch the asinine tripe some channels are broadcasting.

History channel comes to mind with all the nescient "there used to exist advanced civilizations and/or aliens" shows, there's all those ridiculous "ghost hunter" shows, there's general "paranormal" shows -- the scientific literacy of mainstream television literally plummeted a hundred IQ points sometime in the last decade.

Thank the TV Gods for Mythbusters. :yes: Luckily, their popularity does inspire at least some hope.

Unless you consider the possibility that the majority of its viewers aren't really doing much thinking on their own, and taking EVERYTHING they conclude at face-value, unaware of the fact that they sometimes goof up.

In answer to the OP's question, I actually am of the opinion that technological advancement is more along the lines of biological evolution (with the important exception of being deliberate), than purely directional. So, I don't think this "progress" can be oppressed, and I don't really think it ever was deliberately oppressed, except in renaissance Europe when a scientific discovery went against the established religious cosmology. (As far as I know, that didn't happen anywhere else in the world.)

 

[Twiglet04]

In answer to the OP's question, I actually am of the opinion that technological advancement is more along the lines of biological evolution (with the important exception of being deliberate), than purely directional. So, I don't think this "progress" can be oppressed, and I don't really think it ever was deliberately oppressed, except in renaissance Europe when a scientific discovery went against the established religious cosmology. (As far as I know, that didn't happen anywhere else in the world.)

Don't you think religious outcry and opposition to things like genetic engineering, abortion(although largely failed) and the campaigns to teach creationism as fact (Fortunately only in America, as far as I know) are religious attempts to slow and halt both intellectual and technological progress?

 

[micrurus]

think about it

 

[outhouse]

think about it

That is the truth right there.



religion should be tried for crimes against humanity

 

[Riverwolf]

Don't you think religious outcry and opposition to things like genetic engineering, abortion(although largely failed) and the campaigns to teach creationism as fact (Fortunately only in America, as far as I know) are religious attempts to slow and halt both intellectual and technological progress?

No, I think they're attempts at trying to give themselves, who likely have self-esteem issues, some sense of worth.

 

[Riverwolf]

think about it

Evidence?

After all, there were technological advancements made during that time, and the Dark Ages were only in Europe. There were plenty of advancements, in Islamic countries especially, and elsewhere in the world.

Besides, there's no evidence that we would be farther along now than we would have been. I call logical fallacy there.

 

[Riverwolf]

And another thing.

In order for that chart to be accurate to the theory that religion is inherently detrimental to scientific and technological progress (whatever that even means), then it should be dark the entire time, not just during the European dark age.

Instead, technology and science were doing just fine up to that point, and in the rest of the world, thriving.

Europe is not a microcosm for the world.

 

[meogi]

As do I. Also, how does one quantify scientific advancement?

 

[micrurus]

Evidence?

After all, there were technological advancements made during that time, and the Dark Ages were only in Europe. There were plenty of advancements, in Islamic countries especially, and elsewhere in the world.

Besides, there's no evidence that we would be farther along now than we would have been. I call logical fallacy there.

you make a good point here.
but didn't the islamic country's eventualy close their doors for knowledge because of religion?

I will move ahead in this conversation and grant you that the leading civilisation after that ( china) wasn't destroyed by religion but by opium (arguably).

the evidence this chart uses is mathematical (but not conclusive)
if you study the advancement of civilisation over time, you can turn it into a mathematical model : Y=... to try and make predictions whare the trend that your following would lead you.

an other example of these calculations is the predictions of howmuch the co2 levels would rise if we continue our current trend.

if you need more evidence, I can onley compare the technology of the roman empire with the technologies of the dark ages.

I know that its not conclusive evidence, but it is an illustration of how religion held back technology. and i don't think that you can dispute the fact that christianity held back tchnology in the dark ages.

 

[Riverwolf]

you make a good point here.
but didn't the islamic country's eventualy close their doors for knowledge because of religion?

If that were the case, then the doors would have been closed from the start.

I will move ahead in this conversation and grant you that the leading civilisation after that ( china) wasn't destroyed by religion but by opium (arguably).

the evidence this chart uses is mathematical (but not conclusive)
if you study the advancement of civilisation over time, you can turn it into a mathematical model : Y=... to try and make predictions whare the trend that your following would lead you.

an other example of these calculations is the predictions of howmuch the co2 levels would rise if we continue our current trend.

Bad analogy.

CO2 levels are concrete and easily measurable. Scientific advancement is much more arbitrary. ATM, after all, it's not religion that's keeping us from the moon, and it's certainly not religion keeping us from the other side of the galaxy; distance alone takes care of that.

if you need more evidence, I can onley compare the technology of the roman empire with the technologies of the dark ages.

I know that its not conclusive evidence, but it is an illustration of how religion held back technology. and i don't think that you can dispute the fact that christianity held back tchnology in the dark ages.

I shall until you can show me some proof that there was absolutely no scientific and technological thought whatsoever during that time. (Based on my understanding, there was.)

Besides, Dark Ages Christianity isn't exactly a microcosm of religion as a whole.

 

[micrurus]

If that were the case, then the doors would have been closed from the start.

no, Islam became more fundamentalistic as an act of selfpreservation. and it did this in response to outside threats like the crusades.

its been a while since ive read anything about this, but if you want I can always do some research and give you a detailed explanation of what happoned.

Bad analogy.

CO2 levels are concrete and easily measurable. Scientific advancement is much more arbitrary. ATM, after all, it's not religion that's keeping us from the moon, and it's certainly not religion keeping us from the other side of the galaxy; distance alone takes care of that.

there are several thing about technology that you can compare objectively. for instance, you can measure the average crop yield per hectare of farm land. you can compare the average lifespan. you can compare the accuracy with which buildings are made (and i can tell you, some roman building rivel even the most modern ones today in that department).

I shall until you can show me some proof that there was absolutely no scientific and technological thought whatsoever during that time. (Based on my understanding, there was.)

im not claiming that there waren't. but im claiming that most of them ware severely held back by religion. like the idea of a round earth or the idea that the sun is the center of our solar system.

Besides, Dark Ages Christianity isn't exactly a microcosm of religion as a whole.

I would never claim that christianity represents every religion.

 

[outhouse]

I still like the chart and see no real flaws, there were no great advancements from 425-1500. I do see allot of genocide by the church and gold stealing though in the name of the cross.

I have been with in a few feet personaly of that exact cross as well as inches from Pizarros sword

we know religion murdered scientist and those that apposed rational thinking dealing with reality during that period

In modern times we have also seen how religion holds back intellegence and advancement in children with religion fighting for pseudoscience to be taught instead of REAL science.

In this forum alone I have seen a wealth of stupidity that should not be there. Some people are so brainwashed that cannot face reality. Fairy tales and superstition are held as reality instead of education which is willfully ignored

you might not but i find this pitiful

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm not sure about this. It may be my subjective "oh no" reflex, but it appears to me that scientific literacy is increasingly abysmal and the widening divide between political and religious ideology in grassroots movements in several countries has been lately increasing the furor of anti-intellectualism. Whether it's an increase in numbers or simply an increase in the amount of press coverage/loudness I'm not sure, but there's something disturbing about the fact that a lot of public television is chock full of absolute pseudoscientific/pseudohistoric garbage.

I'm not sure how much a culture can be judged by what it watches, but something tells me that it doesn't bode well for the intellectual future of at least those who avidly watch the asinine tripe some channels are broadcasting.

History channel comes to mind with all the nescient "there used to exist advanced civilizations and/or aliens" shows, there's all those ridiculous "ghost hunter" shows, there's general "paranormal" shows -- the scientific literacy of mainstream television literally plummeted a hundred IQ points sometime in the last decade.

Edit: I know it's off topic, but the fact that "Jersey Shore" is watched and loved by any number of Homo sapiens literally makes me abhor being a member of the species.

In my off-topic opinion, "celebrity culture" is akin to sociocultural and intellectual suicide for a culture; especially when it would take a stadium full of said celebrities to match the IQ of a barn mouse.

Most people have always been more superstitious and superficial than rational and deep. It's always been a frighteningly small number of people who have contributed to the progress of humanity.

 

[Riverwolf]

no, Islam became more fundamentalistic as an act of selfpreservation. and it did this in response to outside threats like the crusades.

its been a while since ive read anything about this, but if you want I can always do some research and give you a detailed explanation of what happoned.

I'd like that. Try to avoid sources that have agendas, though.

After all, from what I understand, the crusades were a complete failure, and Saladin displayed moral superiority to Richard III, by giving food and shelter to the Christian troops. That's an indication to me that Islam reached its current state at a later time.

there are several thing about technology that you can compare objectively. for instance, you can measure the average crop yield per hectare of farm land. you can compare the average lifespan. you can compare the accuracy with which buildings are made (and i can tell you, some roman building rivel even the most modern ones today in that department).

But have you checked that graph to make sure it's done just that? There are so many variables in this case that I don't see how a single graph can represent all of them.

Not to mention, many of our modern technologies were discovered by accident (such as penicillin), meaning there's absolutely no way to know if we really could have reached our current point earlier. That is why I call fallacy.

im not claiming that there waren't. but im claiming that most of them ware severely held back by religion. like the idea of a round earth or the idea that the sun is the center of our solar system.

Aristotle's round earth at the center of the universe (which as at that time believed to be composed of various spheres) was actually the cosmology of Dark Ages Christianity.

I would never claim that christianity represents every religion.

Maybe not deliberately, but your choice of words certainly does so, by saying that religion itself has held back technological and scientific advancement, instead of specifying that you mean Dark Ages Christianity.

 

[Riverwolf]

I still like the chart and see no real flaws, there were no great advancements from 425-1500.

You don't think the wheelbarrow is great?

How about cranes?

How about hourglasses and clocks?

The printing press barely makes your range at 1440.

Universities made their appearance in Europe at about the 11th and 13th centuries, according to Wiki.

Buttons on clothing.

Glass mirrors.

Soap.

Canons.

There are others that Wikipedia lists, and I'm sure there's others that it missed.

These make your statement false.

we know religion murdered scientist and those that apposed rational thinking dealing with reality during that period

Examples?

In modern times we have also seen how religion holds back intellegence and advancement in children with religion fighting for pseudoscience to be taught instead of REAL science.

How many of those movements have actually succeeded?

Believe me, that's by far the least of our worries when it comes to the American education system. Even with the teaching of real science in schools, it appears that the average joe only has a very rudimentary knowledge of how science works and what it teaches.

 

[micrurus]

I'd like that. Try to avoid sources that have agendas, though.

After all, from what I understand, the crusades were a complete failure, and Saladin displayed moral superiority to Richard III, by giving food and shelter to the Christian troops. That's an indication to me that Islam reached its current state at a later time.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

give a read to "end of the golden age" and "decline"

I think that my statement "Islam abandoned science in order to embrace religion" is not a bad observation.

But have you checked that graph to make sure it's done just that? There are so many variables in this case that I don't see how a single graph can represent all of them.

Not to mention, many of our modern technologies were discovered by accident (such as penicillin), meaning there's absolutely no way to know if we really could have reached our current point earlier. That is why I call fallacy.

I already agreed that it is not conclusive.
and with some basic knowledge, I can make some estimations.
I know for a fact that advancement of technology has a tendancy to accelerate over time. because the more we discover, the easier it is to discover new things based on our previous discoveries.

you can make that observation by simply comparing the advancement of technology in the stonage with advancement of technology now.

so, with this I can say that a graph would use the mathematical model y=x^a
but your right, i cannot be sure of the value of "a". the graph I showed you may have some variance, if "a" was smaller, the graph would lean more to the right, If "a" was larger, the graph would lean more to the left.

but the basic shape of the graph can be confirmed. and the observation that the dark ages is inconsistent with the rest is also not to far fetched.

and you are right, there are irregularities that you can't put in there, but when your looking at a basic trend, irregularities are of litle importance.

Aristotle's round earth at the center of the universe (which as at that time believed to be composed of various spheres) was actually the cosmology of Dark Ages Christianity.

Im not even going to do research on that because it is of litle importance for the statement that im making.

are you going to tell me that there hasen't been anyone in history who was killed for not comforming with a religion?

Maybe not deliberately, but your choice of words certainly does so, by saying that religion itself has held back technological and scientific advancement, instead of specifying that you mean Dark Ages Christianity.

I said "it is an illustration of how religion held back technology"
meaning, it is an example of how a religion held back technology.

If what I said is interpretated in the way you claim, than I apologise, I did not mean to do so.