The Contributions of Religion to Modern Science vs. New Atheism

[Heyo]

So all those anti science religious types who refused to listen to the meteorologists were wiped out and the next generation will have a higher percentage of science believers.
And the universe is unfolding as it should.

If the anti religious types weren't so hypocritical, they would have been wiped out or at least marginalized. But while they are arguing against science, they use technology that is based in the science they deride.

 

[viole]

Comfortably perched atop the podium, Christopher Hitchens declared religion to be an "axis of evil" to an audience comprising, inevitably, some self-identified skeptics and anti-religious listeners. With seemingly equal disdain for nuance and religious belief, it was in this environment that a plethora of similar declarations were afoot, spearheaded by famous proponents of "New Atheism," including Hitchens himself along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett.

Religion, within this framework, was a mere impediment to human progress at worst and a primitive emotional crutch at best. God was simply a "Delusion" (Richard Dawkins, 2006) and "Not Great" (Hitchens, 2007). Faith was to "End" (Sam Harris, 2004), and science could answer moral questions in a Moral Landscape (Sam Harris, 2010). Religion in general and theism in specific had become obsolete and harmful, or so one could be led to believe.

But a major fault line remained along the confident declarations of New Atheism, sustained both by history and the roots of science. Was religion merely an irredeemable axis of evil? Did it teach "[us] to be satisfied with not understanding the world" (Richard Dawkins)?

Modern psychology, for instance, extensively employs mindfulness practice in well-evidenced therapeutic approaches. These practices have their roots in Buddhist philosophy and practices dating back over 2,000 years. Siddhartha Gautama's teachings were not reducible to a "delusion" or "evil," then, nor could their immense contribution to modern science be overlooked by any serious student of history or science.

Millennia later, Christian theology would give rise to fundamental underpinnings of modern science and the Enlightenment. Far from being invoked only in justification of burnings at the stake or holy crusades, the name of God was at the core of numerous scientific endeavors that would later pave the way for our modern world to take its current shape.

Islam's emphasis on the five daily prayers as one of its Five Pillars motivated a subset of the study of astronomy in the medieval era, some of which would influence later research in the field.

Much like a wall made up of continuously accumulating bricks, modern knowledge did not suddenly spring into existence. It is built upon increments from previous millennia, much of which would not have been possible without religion as a component of the human condition. The notion that we should now crush some of the first bricks to be laid and treat them as a hindrance rather than a step along the way seems contrary to history, logic, and—to borrow a favorite term among New Atheist circles—reason.

Are you advertising here the functionality of belief in any God towards progresses in science, or the existence of the target of said belief?

To make an example, if I believed that Charlie, an invisible magical almighty Turtle, created the Universe by using inherently random processes, I would have probably been helped to accept inherently random processes like Quantum Mechanics. Unlike traditional Gods, who notoriously do not play dice.

But would that be enough to attribute any merit to Charlie, or belief in It, for helping in developing QM? Or a superiority of Almighty Charlie, against all those loser Gods who claimed to have created the world without any chance in it?

I doubt it. After all, even a broken Rolex is right twice a day.

By the way, there is no new atheism. New atheists are like old atheists, with the difference that they can speak out freely, without risking of being the main course of some barbecue party, or some equivalent terrible thing.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

It is built upon increments from previous millennia, much of which would not have been possible without religion as a component of the human condition.

That is impossible to know.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's possible you are right, or it is possible that the consensus of scholarly experts who have devoted decades to studying the actual evidence are right.

In your view, when a non-expert with minimal knowledge of a topic strongly asserts an opinion that just happens to chime with their ideological and emotional prejudices, yet almost all experts say something very different, who tends to be correct?

Are these 'experts' impeccably neutral on this subject - as to investigating?

 

[lukethethird]

Are these 'experts' impeccably neutral on this subject - as to investigating?

Like the "experts" on CNN?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Like the "experts" on CNN?

Rarely read this news outlet but I doubt @Augustus meant this.

 

[Alien826]

Maybe strange, but subtracting the sarcasm, I kind of agree mostly with the straw man atheist!

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think it is interesting how Catholicism adjusted truth to fit discoveries in science, and did so by overlaying doctrine. I would say it was a smart and successful tactic. Contrast this with how protestants have gone the other way and diverted to a literalist interpretation of the Bible which has oddly even influenced many Catholics and Muslims. I suggest this divorce from science (reality) has led to the existence of climate and vaccine deniers. These tribes have used denialism to help unify their groupthink in ways that religion alone could not do in this modern era. Nothing works to unite people like "us versus them".

Catholicism had some missteps on the way. Galileo was tried largely due to his works that contradicted what the Bishops of that time were claiming had to be true, and Bruno, though he had other issues as well, was executed. At least partially for denying geocentrism.

Though the Church did seem to learn from those errors and did not repeat them. So that at least was a good thing.

 

[Augustus]

Are these 'experts' impeccably neutral on this subject - as to investigating?

Unless you have evidence that there is a conspiracy among atheist, agnostic, Jewish, etc scholars to hijack an entire field to promote Christian apologetics then “maybe they’re all biased” isn’t a very rational assumption.

 

[Augustus]

Like the "experts" on CNN?

Siri, show me a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Augustus]

Galileo was tried largely due to his works that contradicted what the Bishops of that time were claiming had to be true

It was also what most astronomers were saying had to be true.

As an oversimplification (but broadly true), he was tried largely for being a bit of a **** who lacked both foresight and tact and falling out with the Pope while overestimating the political protection he had from his patrons.

He could have taught heliocentrism as a hypothesis rather than a fact (and it still was a hypothesis at this point and wouldn’t be proven for a few decades).

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was also what most astronomers were saying had to be true.

As an oversimplification (but broadly true), he was tried largely for being a bit of a dick who lacked both foresight and tact and falling out with the Pope while overestimating the political protection he had from his patrons.

He could have taught heliocentrism as a hypothesis rather than a fact (and it still was a hypothesis at this point and wouldn’t be proven for a few decades).

Sorry, but your weak attempts to defned the Catholic Church in their immoral trial has already been dealt with more than once. I do not care to do so again. Try finding someone else to argue on over this.

 

[lukethethird]

It's possible you are right, or it is possible that the consensus of scholarly experts who have devoted decades to studying the actual evidence are right.

In your view, when a non-expert with minimal knowledge of a topic strongly asserts an opinion that just happens to chime with their ideological and emotional prejudices, yet almost all experts say something very different, who tends to be correct?

We can agree to disagree. In order to progress science must put religious ideals and religious ways of thinking aside. To this day religions interfere in that process one way or the other, revisionist history only serves to cover up that past.

 

[rational experiences]

Human natural history. Origin. After ice age sacrificed DNA.

Carbonised.

DNA origin father mother genetics removed. Instant. By man's pyramid technology.

All human babies born were mutual origin DNA too. Same type DNA Tribal.

Baby man grew into adult man. Suns star mass coldest part came of a consuming sun ...came to earth.

Changed his bio mind. Heard speaking voice saw visions about very ancient origin earth giant pyramid technology. That converted all things to ashes.

From ashes known to dust science is now after ice age.

Archaeological fused evidence origin life was destroyed is machine parts in fused mass. Human artefacts in fused mass. Meant instant freeze yet no ice.

New life dinosaur emerged. No ice.

Stars hit earth twice again. Life eradicated.

Star man themes about changed laws. Proof moon planetoid asteroid. Stars were infinite frozen once. Space laws. No aliens. After the sun burst attack of all planets or gods.

Man of science changed that law by nuclear earth technology. Man caused star fall.

Stars fell burning wandering. Hit earth. Life ended first as ashes. Origin.

As no countries human or animal DNA is the same. Origin DNA after the ice again was again carbon combusted.

Cannot be returned healed to one human kind origin DNA is a teaching.

Now it's gods heavens recorded human voice recorded images. Witnessed as it's real. Waters memory.

Machines only men design is by bio thought. Built. Control use it today as proof machines caused it before. Recorded voices sounds images.

Knowing he doesn't own the heavens mass human greed wants to own and control heavens mass. A teaching not science. Which was religious purpose about the human spirit life...human exact.

As his mind in science is told I'm not using all of the past machine causes myself. Voice transmitters image transmitters.

The rest he says meaning our bio life owning DNA removed yet survivng he wants as a resource.

As we aren't heavens mass nor heavens mass causes.

So evil is science as sciences satanic God against natural law God versus medical healer once a legal stance as religious laws. Legal not a practice until it was...isn't religion. It was a position to be taught.

No man is God
Dont theorise or name what isn't God.

Exact.

If humans prove they display bad behaviour then it's personally the individual. Not the group.

Yet if a whole group is exhibiting bad behaviour then they are.

Pretty basic human only reason why it was written. As writing was about recording human used intelligence.

 

[rational experiences]

Catholicism had some missteps on the way. Galileo was tried largely due to his works that contradicted what the Bishops of that time were claiming had to be true, and Bruno, though he had other issues as well, was executed. At least partially for denying geocentrism.

Though the Church did seem to learn from those errors and did not repeat them. So that at least was a good thing.

When mistranslation of astute men of old is done by humans today.

Law says you cannot speak on behalf of the dead.

O God earth in space by its type is geology central to space not the sun in laws.

As it is law that was the argument not theory.

Is what mistakes you made about Galileo's treatment about sun theories.

Metal Alchemy or designs were not allowed. As the rock the church was used for human bio resonate building healings.

The earth travels in space. Law.
The earth was it's owned sun. It's heavens light.

So it was central to itself whether or not it moved around a Sun.

As earths laws dusts were in space stars laws not suns laws.

Was what they taught.

 

[Heyo]

Siri, show me a textbook example of cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is an emotional discomfort resulting from trying to hold two contradicting views at the same time. This discomfort can't be shown scientifically but it can be tried to be shown artistically, like here:

 

[PearlSeeker]

Maybe strange, but subtracting the sarcasm, I kind of agree mostly with the straw man atheist!

Yes, at first the commandments in the video sound sympathetic to a rational thinker but the point is that the atheist guy turns out self-contradictory and dogmatic.

 

[Augustus]

We can agree to disagree. In order to progress science must put religious ideals and religious ways of thinking aside. To this day religions interfere in that process one way or the other, revisionist history only serves to cover up that past.

Science became established in spite of religion which in turn did everything in its power to strangle science when science was young and still in its cradle.

It’s hard to square “Did everything in its power to strangle science” with the fact that the church was by far the biggest funder of scientific research, provider of scientific education, translator and preserver of scientific texts, and employer of those making scientific discoveries, as well as religion being a primary motivation for many people to study “unproductive” science.

Agreeing to disagree on this is agreeing that one side will completely ignore established historical facts in favour of personal anti-religious animus.

People can certainly legitimately disagree on the extent to which religion helped and hindered scientific progress at various points, and even if the overall impact was a net plus or minus but the idea religion has historically been relentlessly anti-science requires a wilful ignorance of historical evidence.

 

[danieldemol]

Comfortably perched atop the podium, Christopher Hitchens declared religion to be an "axis of evil" to an audience comprising, inevitably, some self-identified skeptics and anti-religious listeners. With seemingly equal disdain for nuance and religious belief, it was in this environment that a plethora of similar declarations were afoot, spearheaded by famous proponents of "New Atheism," including Hitchens himself along with Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett.

Religion, within this framework, was a mere impediment to human progress at worst and a primitive emotional crutch at best. God was simply a "Delusion" (Richard Dawkins, 2006) and "Not Great" (Hitchens, 2007). Faith was to "End" (Sam Harris, 2004), and science could answer moral questions in a Moral Landscape (Sam Harris, 2010). Religion in general and theism in specific had become obsolete and harmful, or so one could be led to believe.

But a major fault line remained along the confident declarations of New Atheism, sustained both by history and the roots of science. Was religion merely an irredeemable axis of evil? Did it teach "[us] to be satisfied with not understanding the world" (Richard Dawkins)?

Modern psychology, for instance, extensively employs mindfulness practice in well-evidenced therapeutic approaches. These practices have their roots in Buddhist philosophy and practices dating back over 2,000 years. Siddhartha Gautama's teachings were not reducible to a "delusion" or "evil," then, nor could their immense contribution to modern science be overlooked by any serious student of history or science.

Millennia later, Christian theology would give rise to fundamental underpinnings of modern science and the Enlightenment. Far from being invoked only in justification of burnings at the stake or holy crusades, the name of God was at the core of numerous scientific endeavors that would later pave the way for our modern world to take its current shape.

Islam's emphasis on the five daily prayers as one of its Five Pillars motivated a subset of the study of astronomy in the medieval era, some of which would influence later research in the field.

Much like a wall made up of continuously accumulating bricks, modern knowledge did not suddenly spring into existence. It is built upon increments from previous millennia, much of which would not have been possible without religion as a component of the human condition. The notion that we should now crush some of the first bricks to be laid and treat them as a hindrance rather than a step along the way seems contrary to history, logic, and—to borrow a favorite term among New Atheist circles—reason.

I believe that religion historically provided the motive to study nature before people found secular applications for science, however your title appears to confuse religious motivation to study nature with religion contributing to science.

Since the Bible and the Quran have to be heavily post hoc rationalised to read science into them I think it is clear that religion did not contribute scientific knowledge, only the motivation to gain scientific knowledge.

So I would say that with respect to Western religion (including Islam even though it is not precisely western), it is true to say religion didn't contribute to science, but rather that it contributed motivation to study science.

I personally find that although Buddhism is a religion, comparing it to Judaism, Christianity and Islam is apples and oranges in many ways.

In my opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Unless you have evidence that there is a conspiracy among atheist, agnostic, Jewish, etc scholars to hijack an entire field to promote Christian apologetics then “maybe they’re all biased” isn’t a very rational assumption.

OK