Has Religion Slowed Scientific Progress Through History?

[LightSpectra]

Originally Posted by Gorakshanat

Religions are all almost the same.

I pity all those drains filled to the brim with your credibility.

Moderator Action: Infracted for flaming - please don't insult people.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=updated_rules_2011

[ParkCungHee]

Originally Posted by Gorakshanat

Religions are all almost the same. What realy makes the difference is the individual human nature.

What a dull world you must live in.

[Lord Baal]

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that the Aztec religion and Theravada Buddhism are almost exactly the same?

[Masada]

where's mah christian orgies

[taillesskangaru]

Originally Posted by Lord Baal

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that the Aztec religion and Theravada Buddhism are almost exactly the same?

Well, there's this notorious case of the Siamese City Pillar ceremony...

Probably just a myth though.

[_random_]

Originally Posted by Masada

where's mah christian orgies

According to rumors, here.

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Originally Posted by ParkCungHee

What a dull world you must live in.

Well thank you; maybe my world is little bit dull sometimes but surely not more than an avarege so no need to be concerned much here. Besides I have pointed out the variety of human nature so the opposite is even more likely to be true...
If I am Buddhist and not Christian its becouse its suites my nature and I am not likely to change that till the rest of my life but I am certainly going to meet planty of different folks within the Buddhist path.
Christianity and Buddhism both if practised correctly and with sincererity will lead to higher truth. Also both has some involved mistakes or you can say they dont represent the whole Truth only they are ray of light which can inspire individual (if its suites his naturel) to enter into the effulgence of Light. This is viable through many other ways/paths as well. So thats the reason or point of wiew which can see all religion as very simmilar.
What you can distinguish, I think, is higher religion and lower religion. The higher religion would offer you the potentiality of realising truth in its wholeness. Whereas the lower one will offer you mainly the way of regulating your life. It goes without saying that although there are many religious folks its the minority which cares for the very highest.

Originally Posted by LightSpectra

I pity all those drains filled to the brim with your credibility.

I am aware it was a bit cheap after you have put so much into explaining your point but I have made one as well which you didnt took trouble to adress...

Originally Posted by Lord Baal

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks that the Aztec religion and Theravada Buddhism are almost exactly the same?

[Pangur Bán]

Asking whether or not "religion" has slowed scientific progress is like asking if having eyes retarded the development of glasses. The problem is that most people build their understanding of "religion" based on the Judeo-Christian-Muslim world they know, but if you try to distinguish them across a variety of societies it's clear that they are more or less the same thing; or rather, the distinction is irrelevant and culturally specific to ours.

In our society the heart of the distinction is really two parallel classes of cosmos-explainers that we have, and that is ultimately a result of having big church organizations and large groups of people convinced that church traditions are of supreme value. In opposition to the strenght of these, we have generated myths about past religious persecutions of "science" in order to promote our own values, myths such as that of Galileo and Columbus and the flat earth.

[classical_hero]

Originally Posted by Masada

where's mah christian orgies

You are a millennia too late.

[Ergo Sum]

Originally Posted by Gorakshanat

If I am Buddhist and not Christian its becouse its suites my nature and I am not likely to change that till the rest of my life but I am certainly going to meet planty of different folks within the Buddhist path.

Or are you Buddhist because your parents taught you to be and you were socialized to agree with Buddhist principles?

Are you saying this because it suits your nature or because you were socialized to believe in this strain of religious pluralism?

[Yeekim]

Originally Posted by Pangur Bán

Asking whether or not "religion" has slowed scientific progress is like asking if having eyes retarded the development of glasses.

You mean that scientific progress would be completely useless without religion?

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Originally Posted by Ergo Sum

Or are you Buddhist because your parents taught you to be and you were socialized to agree with Buddhist principles?

Are you saying this because it suits your nature or because you were socialized to believe in this strain of religious pluralism?

Good point. It was an example and I am aware that quite often it doesnt work that way but there is no good reason it shouldnt. I was brought up an atheist in communistic Czechoslovakia. And the yoga path I am currently pursuing was choice of my inclination.

[Pangur Bán]

Originally Posted by Yeekim

You mean that scientific progress would be completely useless without religion?

In terms of this distinction, not useless, but, rather, inconceivable.

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Originally Posted by Pangur Bán

In terms of this distinction, not useless, but, rather, inconceivable.

would you clarify that pls.

[Pangur Bán]

Originally Posted by Gorakshanat

would you clarify that pls.

A lot of what we call "religion" is about is explaining the universe around us. Diachronically, i.e. in historical terms, science is in essence a specialized off-shoot of religion that does the same job and scientists are the off-shoot of priests and monks (they actually are!). Synchronically, i.e. for us in our culture at this time, "Science" defines itself against "religion", but both concepts are for us dependent on the other. Another way to look at it: viewed from the position of science, religion and "tradition" is the negative imprint of science (the scientific method and the corpus of observations and theory dependent upon its practice), but the boundaries are unclear because our scientific tradition is not always popularly understood to explain as much as it actually can do.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by Pangur Bán

for us in our culture at this time, "Science" defines itself against "religion", but both concepts are for us dependent on the other.

I'm not sure which part of the sentence is more incorrect, the first or the second.

[Traitorfish]

Care to enlighten us? It does not seem self-evidently absurd to me.

[warpus]

Well, since when does science define itself to be "against religion?" That is just nonsense.

[Traitorfish]

Could you explain why?

[Pangur Bán]

At a guess I'd say Warpus is reading "against" as "hostile towards", which for clarity is not the intended meaning.