Does religion (Christianity especially) hold back science?
>>344289
Not usually, doesn't help it either though
Occasionally. But I wouldn't say that Christianity is especially guilty of this. If anything, for long periods of time, Christianity actually HELPED spread knowledge and scientific understanding. Even today, the best research comes from nations that are or were Christian. And compared to, say, Islam, Christianity as a whole is positively pro-science, even if there were(and still are, for some people) some sacred cows like Earth being at the center of the universe.
The churches have done much to foster scientific progress, but I wouldn't say that's a direct result of Christianity, rather the institutions having enough money to create/maintain/fund educational facilities.
>>344289
There is no objective way to measure scientific advancement so we'll never know. Presenting Christianity and religion in general as one unified block is also a problem.
Someone post the huge picture of famous Christian intellectuals
>>344292
Is this picture meant to imply that the clothes that a priest wear should evolve through time like technology does?
>>344333
The implication is that religion is stagnant.
>>344333
I rather think that it implies that religion tries to stay the same - for good or ill - while science changes the world.
No, without religion hard science is meaningless. If you do believe in God, who created the universe conceivable and reasonable, and created you in his likeness, being able to know thing the way they are, being able to understand the reasons, then science is the most rational thing to do. But if you an atheists, then you have no reason to thing your mental capabilities is enough to even scratch the surface of the universe. Moreover, the universe itself could be most likely unconceivable and unreasonable. And if you believe your mental abilities is a product of evolution, you have no reason to think you should be enough for any such endeavor, like, biological limits.
So no, pure atheists is destined to be a septic and thus regard science as no more than a curiosity. On the other had, a believer can and should use its god-given reason to try to understand god-created reasonable universe. This is why modern science was created by monks and priests.
>>344289
No, how would it? ORGANIZED religion was at one point strong enough and inclined to do so, to a VERY limited degree, but ever since it has been weakened and reduced to something so meagre that it can't compete with "science" anymore.
The insistence on the primate of science is holding back religion.
I would say no.
Even in the medieval dark ages, there were advances made in science and especially architecture. With Cathedrals of magnificent scale being built even with all the knowledge of Roman engineering lost to most people.
Leaders still remained christian and loyal to the church even during the Renaissance, Age of Enlightenment, and into the modern day. Believing in a higher power doesn't exactly prevent one from understanding a method as to how something works or why it works.
When religion or a church authority attempts to ban a scientific teaching on the bases of it's contradictory nature to its doctrine, it's generally only temporary, even a flash in the pan compared to the grand scheme of time, with evolution banned from schools for only 10-20 years before the bans are lifted, and cooler head invite discussion on the subject rather than repression of an idea.
>>344331
What's the point? They do science because they find science interesting. The fact that they were religious as well (since almost everyone was back then) doesn't contribute to their science work
>>344341
Oh dear
>>344289
Sometimes yes sometimes no.
Religion is a broad term applied to phenomena that had the whole damn world wrapped up in them for a while. Even outside of the religious establishment proper, there was little that was not touched by religious people or religious thinking. You can blame or credit religion for just about anything with adequate sophistry.
Science as a practice is held back by ethics boards and limited budgets. I'm assuming you meant scientific progress though. Would you say that we currently hold back scientific progress because we don't allow and pay for everything, or would you say that we encourage scientific progress by allowing and paying for some things? It's obviously kind of a weird question when you take religion out of it, because from the start there's no established baseline or natural rate of progress to compare our actual rate of progress to. Hell, progress itself is pretty ill defined.
At least until you define your terms and question better, expect shit discussion.
>>344351
>Everyone was back then
Atheists have always existed, and the picture I'm referring too was a list of people who were not only intellectuals, but of people who also wrote books about the existence of god, Christianity, etc
There is no science-religion dichotomy
It's a myth perpetrated by cynical "New Atheists" and designed to enable them to sell more cups and shirts with their quotes printed on them.
>>344289
Giordano Bruno was an Italian Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer. He is celebrated for his cosmological theories, which went even further than the then-novel Copernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant suns surrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known as cosmic pluralism). He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center".
Beginning in 1593, Bruno was tried for heresy by the Roman Inquisition on charges including denial of several core Catholic doctrines (including the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, the virginity of Mary, and Transubstantiation). Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern. The Inquisition found him guilty, and in 1600 he was burned at the stake in Rome's Campo de' Fiori. After his death he gained considerable fame, being particularly celebrated by 19th- and early 20th-century commentators who regarded him as a martyr for science
>>344289
Yes, or more precisely morality and ethics hold back science
>>344359
he said "for good or for ill"
>>344341
Here is your reply
>>344365
The New Atheists are responsible for it as well but I think the tension mainly comes from the Christian fundamentalists with their insane evolution denial and young earth creationism.
>>344374
True, cynical radicals on both sides are perpetrating it. It helps both of them establish a kind of "defender/conqueror of faith"-kind of appearance around themselves.
>>344370
>Bruno's pantheism was also a matter of grave concern
Damn, imagine if Einstein had lived in a Catholic controlled country, they would have killed him
They are normally unrelated
problem is when people believe they are related in some way.
Middle ages didn't suppress science as much as back then not many people were interested. Church only studied enough to pursue their faith and the Nobility/Royalty didn't study much at all (they were busy with the whole "wars" thing that also didn't have much to do with religion) Butting of science and religion came during the late Renaissance were people actually studied the classics (mostly to elevate their positions) and the church's hold on Europe wasn't as certain (due to the reformation).
>>344341
>atheism equals nihilism
Just kill yourself faggot.
>>344411
So, how do you know your limited brain is an apt tool to understand objective reality in all its complexity? You can't teach a cat to read because biology, so what makes you think human mind is enough to know something about the-world-as-it-is? Science has nothing to do with objectivity, it good only to explore our limited abilities, not the world itself.
>>344439
>You can't teach a cat to read because biology, so what makes you think human mind is enough to know something about the-world-as-it-is?
Because our minds are Turing complete
>>344289
Science arose because Christianity removed divinity from the world around us.
>>344439
You don't have to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Newtonian physics is an adequate predictive model under some circumstances without being a perfect understanding of all physics.
Why would acknowledging that we have limits prevent us from approaching our limits?
For that matter your theology is pretty naive. The ineffable and limits of human understanding have been a point of interest for numerous faiths for a long while now.
>>344505
Science came before Christianity
>>344391
Not an expert but im pretty sure the Catholic church stopped executing scientists by 1900
Consider that important people within Christianity were writing crap like this in Nietzsche's time. Yes, there is a conflict between reason and faith and it's clear what Christians see the bad-guy as.
>>344341
Oh my.
>hurr no it doesn't, religion helped science!
Yes, back in the day when religious people weren't fucking nutters. These days more and more Christians straight up deny any science presented in front of them. Don't even try and deny it.
Consider that Descartes, the very father of the Enlightenment and the seed of the scientific method had his books banned by the Catholic church.
In general the Catholic church has always wanted a monopoly on knowledge. They went through a ton of effort to try to stop the creation of the first encyclopedia and prevent it from getting mass-distributed including imprisoning and torturing the people writing it.
>>344541
Only if by "Christians" you mean American "bible is the literal truth" evangelical protestants.
>>344550
>no true scotsman
>>344483
No they aren't? And in any case, Tuning Machine is a mathematical model with infinite storage capacity. Human brain is a limited physical object.
>>344507
Without some kind of metaphysics you can't solve induction problem, and your "adequate predictive model" is logically unsound, despite being useful in practice. "Laws of nature" is another meaningless term, it's actually just "some patters in our observations", without any logical consequences to the future.
>>344331
>>344550
Yep, Christians.
>>344556
The VAST MAJORITY of Christians don't live in the US. Elsewhere, fundamentalism is less popular than ever.
>>344548
Descartes considered himself a devout Catholic, its more the corrupt and shitty Papacy than christianity
>>344563
>Elsewhere, fundamentalism is less popular than ever.
That's because religion PERIOD is less popular than ever. Rightfully so, too.
>>344576
Christianity you mean, Islam is always on the rise
>>344564
>Descartes considered himself a devout Catholic,
Yes and he was a rare breed of Catholics that thought everything needed to proof and we shouldn't just take the existence of God and the authority of the church without evidence. He tried his best to give a proof for God for the sake of his religion, it was something genuinely worthy of respect. Still got his books banned for daring to say blind obedience was to be questioned.
>its more the corrupt and shitty Papacy than Christianity
I'll let you exclude the Orthodox and the Protestants from the crime against Descartes. However the Catholics bear full responsibility, the papacy is the very head of them. They elect him from wtihin their own ranks and choose to obey his orders. The corruption of the papacy and the corruption of Catholicism is the same thing.
>>344634
As an Orthodox I hate Catholicism as much as you, its extremely Ironic that such a religious man started such a strong trend of questioning god and Atheism in general
>>344560
>every semi-notable Christian scientists since 500ce can fit on a list this small
Absolutely pathetic. It is dwarfed by this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology which is almost exclusively scientists in the last 100 years
>>344722
That list is Christian scientists who also did works about Christianity, not every Christian scientist
>>344391
Einstein was a Jew. Jews had relative autonomy in these things
>>344742
Your statement is false. Consider Sewall Wright, whom is on the list
>>344289
no
/next question
>>344634
>he was a rare breed of Catholics that thought everything needed to proof
Confirmed for knowing zero about Catholic Theolofy
>>344837
>catholics look for proof in everything
>they consider "tradition" and "apostolic authority" as proof
Confirmed for being a blind Catholicuk
>>344722
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_catholic.html This is just Catholics
>>344869
>click link
>look at first entry
>comedian, actor
>(lapsed)
So he's not a scientist and not a Catholic. What is your point exactly?
>>344557
>induction problem
The majority of STEMfags are not philosophers and aren't really concerned with philosophical problems. The belief that it is possible to understand all things or that all things are rational is hardly a prerequisite for an interest in science.
I mentioned "laws of nature" nowhere. Not really sure where you're getting it or where you were trying to go with that one.
>>344557
You can say that it has no logical consequences for the future....
while physicists predict elementary particles and then find them, astronomers predict events in the universe and then observe them. Scientists ultimately don't have to be concerned with looking for a "unifying theory"
Earlier you (or someone else but probably you) said that science is rational to do only if you think that god made the universe for us to be understood. Are you holding out that one day we'll find the last digit of pi?
>>344370
Oh god, no.
That stupid, fat, stupid, black, stupid man has really set this off, didn't he?
>>344900
>The belief that it is possible to understand all things or that all things are rational is hardly a prerequisite for an interest in science.
Yeah, I know, but the lack of sound metaphysic makes hard science kinda an absurd occupation, and it's hard for science not to make any metaphysical claims, like aforementioned "laws of nature". I agree science can be perfectly understood as a search for patterns in observation without making logical deductions and metaphysical claims, but it's much more at home with some strong metaphysics backing the whole endeavor.
>>344901
>You can say that it has no logical consequences for the future....
>while physicists predict elementary particles and then find them, astronomers predict events in the universe and then observe them.
This is not a logical consequence though, this is just a prediction and you can't make any sound logical claims it will repeat every time without solving the induction problem.
>Scientists ultimately don't have to be concerned with looking for a "unifying theory"
Yet they have to make some metaphysical claims (like "there is some consistent laws of nature", "the amount of mass/energy is constant", "our observations actually reflect objective world in some way"), and they have no sound argument to back them, they just assume them without proving. My point is, it's impossible to prove such claims from atheistic POV, yet they are very natural from theistic one.
>Are you holding out that one day we'll find the last digit of pi?
Understanding that there is no such digit is good enough. Also I'm an atheist myself so I think universe can't be understood and science is just a mind game of our limited brains. Useful for sure, but has nothing to do with reality-as-it-is.
>>344953
>I know, but the lack of sound metaphysic makes hard science kinda an absurd occupation
That may or may not be so; I wasn't really going in to rebut that point. Mainly pointing out that people behave absurdly.
The notion that some ideological proposition is a necessary motivating factor in some human behavior is an argument I see fielded from time to time and it never fails to baffle me a little. It's like the person making the argument hasn't met a person yet.
Maybe I'm being dense and this isn't your argument.
>Yet they have to make some metaphysical claims
It might be useful to draw the distinction between making a claim and operating on an assumption. Scientists operate under assumptions that what they're observing has some basis in reality and that it reflects on an internally consistent system, but they don't usually make that argument as part of their work.
I'm also kind of missing where these assumptions are any more natural under theism than under atheism. Both include systems of thought that posit a fundamental divide between the observed and the real. Both include systems of thought that posit a rational universe.
>>345063
> It's like the person making the argument hasn't met a person yet.
Well, I'm not saying an atheist can't or shouldn't be a scientist, I'm just saying it's more comfortable(?) to be a theistic scientist than atheistic one, because the first one has a more sound logical basis. Yet I understand that lack of logical basis never stopped anyone. It could be argued theistic faith itself has no logical basis.
> Both include systems of thought that posit a rational universe.
How can atheist posit a rational universe? All I can say is what up to now all my observations had a pattern in them, but I can't make any claim about the Universe itself. Sure I assume it's somehow rational and go on with my life, but there is no logical soundness in my inductive reasoning. And at the same time, even if the Universe is rational, how can I be sure my limited brain is up to the task to start to understand it?
For classical theist, assuming traditional creation story, Universe was created by rational being for rational beings, so we can assume existence of "natural laws" and can make inductive reasoning from observations. And human mind is created in likeness of the creator mind, so in the end we have the capacity to understand and comprehend the universe as it is.
>>345135
>All I can say is what up to now all my observations had a pattern in them, but I can't make any claim about the Universe itself.
The possibility that your observations are illusory remains possible under theism, and isn't a problem unique to atheism. Gnostics were pretty preoccupied with the same problem.
The possibility that patterns you have observed are merely coincidental or misunderstood isn't something that goes away under any belief system, AFAIK.
>For classical theist, assuming traditional creation story, Universe was created by rational being for rational beings, so we can assume existence of "natural laws" and can make inductive reasoning from observations.
Job would like a word with you. God pretty flatly tells you that you can't understand Him or reality. Humanistic deism is only one expression of theism, and not necessarily true to its own roots.
>>344289
The scientific revolution was by in large a theological innovation.
Most of the great innovations of the scientific revolution began with the 14th century theologians breaking away from Aristotelian natural philosophy where it contradicted the faith. Later Galileo, Copernicus, etc would adopt and advance what was first put forward by thinkers like Oresme, the Merton Schoolmen, Buridan, etc.
Protestantism also had a heavy hand in the direction science would take, since there was a belief that man was made too stupid to imply into the metaphysical structure of God's reality, and that instead we should just be looking to construct simple and elegant models that approximate the natural world so to view God's handy work through that which is more prima facie intelligible to us and take the rest of faith.
The faith itself tends to advance knowledge. In fact, the whole flourishing of the western intellect depended on it. But often the hierarchy of the church restricted knowledge and used force to make sure that dangerous ideas didn't get out of hand( most notably during the counter reformation, when the Church was at its most authoritarian stage)- they should have had more faith in their own intellectuals like Suarez ( who was well respected even by Protestant intellectuals, and is one of the most important influences on 17th century rationalists like Leibniz) to defend the church and show that these dangerous ideas were also false ones. The church had all the material they needed to beat their opponents on rational grounds- but man is so much more likely to be swayed by passion or self interest that they had some reasonable doubt that they could stop the potential negative effects that would come from these new ideas through rational persuasion alone.
>>345203
> The possibility that your observations are illusory remains possible under theism, and isn't a problem unique to atheism.
It's interesting because this is that Descartes does after Cogito - he first proves existence of god via ontological argument, and then goes like "surely omnipresent omnipotent benevolent god wouldn't let us to be deceived by our senses, so the objective reality is real and it is exactly like we perceive it". It's very shaky, but it's something. With atheism it's just nothing.
>Job would like a word with you. God pretty flatly tells you that you can't understand Him or reality. Humanistic deism is only one expression of theism, and not necessarily true to its own roots.
You can't understand him, but you can understand the world. God's intervention surely complicates the picture, but overall it's a more or less reasonable metaphysical system. I don't know if it's better than none though.
I personally is ok with "nothing", "none" and "meaninglessness", but I can see how it's more comfortable for people to hold some kind of believe to make sense of the world, because science alone can't do it.
>>344289
Not specifically christianity or even religion.
What holds back science is a desperate clinging to historical morals and culture.
>>344289
>Nietzsche
>Religion hurts science
>Science good
do u even neetch
>>344289
Science operates on the principle of "lets us examine the world around us, compare notes and results, double check things and when we turn out to be wrong, admit it."
Religion operates on the principle of "we've got all the relevent answers in our holy book, everyone should read and believe what it's says, anything that contradicts our holy book and our interpretation of such must be by nature wrong."
>>344289
Yes.
This answer isn't actually based on subjective arguments over history and whether Christianity did or did not hold back science in the past.
1) Is Christianity holding back stem cell research? Yes, therefore Christianity is holding back science, right now.
2) Is Christianity trying to inhibit the teaching of evolution in classrooms? Yes, therefore Christianity is holding back science, right now.
*How about a knowledge bomb*
THE RELIGION OF SCIENCE HOLDS SCIENCE BACK
[PWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH]
>>346088
#woah
But seriously, meme science is cancer.
Historically no, but in the modern age yes. See the arguments around stem cells for instance. Likewise the blind acceptance of dogma harms the ability to use the scientific method.
>>344742
What work on Christianity did Allan Sandage do?
>>346088
Can't see it! isn't there!
>>346219
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the catholic church which I presume you mean not just opposed to harvesting stem-cells from aborted babies?
They don't have a problem with the actual research
>>346364
>catholic church which I presume you mean
I dont.
>stem-cells from aborted babies?
Remeber they define babies as anything that happens from the moment of conception.
>>344289
No. Probably not. We have no real way to judge this of course, since there is no standard to compare it with.
Every example of isolated societies elsewhere in the world were generally less progressive than the "western" societies throughout significant portions of recent history, and they for the most part lacked Christianity.
Plus most of the scientific revolution and more stems from funding that came from major theologically oriented organizations in Christendom, if not even actual clergymen sometimes.
>>344391
What fucking planet are you living on where the inquisition was trying Jews on a regular basis in the 1800s and 1900s?
>>344289
No many of the greatest scientists were devoutly religious, atheism is a recent phenomena and many people only say they believe to seem intelligent but most havent even heard arguments for the proof of god nor would they be able to grasp them
>>346624
>No many of the greatest scientists were devoutly religious
No they wernt, religion was an important part of society and they had to pretend to be religious or the powers that be would punish them.
The more science proved through empirical inquiry, the easier it was for scientists and people to "come out" as atheist.
>>344370
>Bruno, Martyr of Science
I don't know whether I want to laugh or cry at this magnitude of stupidity.
God dammit, Neil.
>>344533
>CORRUPTED reason has corrupted everything
Not Reason itself. Lewis made this a clear line of delineation, as did Pascal.
>>345865
>an actual Ubermensch apologist
Well, at the very least you're honest.
>>346742
He's right though. A huge thing holding back advances in stem-cells, cloning, and having fun with genes is historical morals and culture.
You could be eating cloned beef made from the DNA of a prize winning pig, while the lab is growing new organs for you by now.....
>>346915
If it came from a pig wouldn't it be pork?
No, that's progressivist nonsense.
>>346695
>this is what atheists actually believe
Post ten names that were just pretending.
>>346695
>No they wernt, religion was an important part of society and they had to pretend to be religious or the powers that be would punish them.
Please actually study up on the history of science before you comment. The amount of theological( or at least Philosophy of religion like) work that Boyle, Descartes, Pascal and Newton partook in, when they could have simply put in a few instances of "praise jesus" in their opening preambles to satisfy the powers that be, constitutes an incredible amount of evidence against your claim.
>>347161
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act
>>347247
How do explain places like Cambridge refusing to let atheists and Catholics graduate until nearly mid way through the 19th Century?
>>344289
>Linear scientific progress
There is absolutely nothing more retarded than believing there is an end goal to humanity.
>>346915
Look anon I don't care about your Science Cult Dreamlands but ethical concerns do not ariae from predisposed moral values but from a pragmatic view of following consequences. People who are afraid of stem-cell research are simply worried about a potentially dangerous public policy made without precedent to inflict their peoples. (A pregnant woman commits a crime? Abort her child for stem cells, and science!)
Typical armchair, fedora tipping athiests
>>347411
We live in a world where it is considered ethically ok to treat farm animals like shit but it is not ethically ok to clone the farm animals.
Also no one is saying we should go around murdering people to get their stem cells. Think about how body stuff are gathered for science already. If you want more blood you have a blood drive, if you want skin samples you put an ad out saying your university is pay $50 to anyone that is willing to stop by and donate tissue. People have the option to donate their bodies to science after they die, you can even get a fair amount of cash for your remaining family if your body has some rare or unusual properties.
The reasoning for not going full steam ahead on stem-cell research and cloning are archaic and foolish. We would have better, cheaper meat, and the important technologies would be 30 years ahead of schedule.
>>347277
Nice and irrelevant. Those names in science anytime.
>>347286
What is there to explain ? The fact that institutional pressure existed isn't enough to ground that most great scientists were faking it. If all they had to do was not be atheists then they could have been moderate like normal people were about their faith. Most of the great scientists and natural philosophers put in so much effort ( and often it was a private effort that was uncovered after their heyday- Newton and Boyle were spreading their scientific work around far more than their theological works) into theological works that it would make no sense if they didn't actually believe. It was enough to pay some lip service to religion, you didn't need to go write dozens of treatises about it to not be persecuted.
>>346915
>cloned beef
>prize winning pig
>>347490
>>347487
The point was to demonstrate that being an atheist did carry quite a burden historically and that coming out as an atheist was actually an issue.
I wasn't that poster arguing that all scientists were secret atheists, only that historically there is undeniable proof of pressure to hide such views. Which as a tangent provides a nice example of religion hindering the flow of information and discussion through abuse of power
>>346410
>Remeber they define babies as anything that happens from the moment of conception.
Well how do you define babies
>>346410
This is hilarious, because that's a case of the Church changing it's position in light of new scientific evidence.
>>346720
Well, he is a martyr, and he is a great scientist
>>344722
Moving the goalposts rather hard aren't we? OP asks if religion holds science back, anon posted a picture with many (not all) Christian scientists, and then you assert it is instead about numbers of scientists and not just science in general? You're the pathetic one.
>>349578
Shut up! Who needs science anyway, fucking fedora-tipping shit-eater? Why don't you go invent a GMO filled banana and shove it up your "amazing atheist anus"? The reason soceity is shit because everyone is inventing and playing with video games, i-tunes, and other gizmos when they should be studying the word of God!
>>345268
this is true.
not only christians, jews and muslims, but also pagans, polytheirst, neoplatonists and sun worshippers helped humanity to advance scientific knowledge.
atheists usually forget this
>>348214
toddlers
(not OP)
