The Big Bang: Why is it still being taught?

[Flying Pig]

(*Religious wars, genocide, human sacrifice, jihad, general intolerance of the unlike, etc)

This is true, but then most people have the opportunity in daily life to covet their neighbour's property or to return harsh words with the same; few people have to fight the temptation to start a crusade or sacrifice a child to Baal. I think on balance the incentives provided by most major religions - at least, the ones I can think of - are to behave in a generally decent way, though you're right that we shouldn't necessarily equate divine commandment with morality. In fact, I'd question whether acting in a particular way primarily out of fear of punishment or expectation of reward - in other words, for fundamentally selfish motives - is a matter of morality at all. To use an old officering phrase, character is how you behave when nobody's watching.

 

[El_Machinae]

Over time, society will select for the more benign religions, if only because it makes for nicer neighborhoods.

"God tells you to help sick people? Okay! Knock yourself out!"

"God tells you to burn people alive to celebrate Spring? Um, that's a pretty stupid god and faith and lifestyle you've chosen ..."

 

[warpus]

False dichotomy. How do you know some people won't become more moral without religion, and average immorality stays the same?

Some people will, but a lot more people will become less moral based on the number of people saying: "I am moral because God". How many people are out there saying: "I am NOT moral because God"? That's the only statistic leading me to this conclusion. Some people will become more moral, some will stay the same, but more people will become less moral, based on the simple premise that if you interviewed all religious people in the world, a lot more would say "I derive my morality from God" than "I derive my lack of morality from God". I don't see how you could argue against that logic.

What sort of false dichotomy did I present though? I false dichotomy is when you present only 2 possible scenarios as options, usually two extremes, when there exist other obvious scenarios. I think you just threw that out there without thinking or I'm not presenting my position well enough and you're misinterpreting it.

 

[Kyriakos]

^In young ages (or if you are Dawkins) one can become reactionary anti-moral due to falsely linking morality with religion.

Besides, morality is not in tautology with christian morality. I am not really in favor of most of the "it is great to be weak/poor/miserable/in pain cause it means god likes you" stuff.

 

[ArneHD]

Over time, society will select for the more benign religions, if only because it makes for nicer neighborhoods.

"God tells you to help sick people? Okay! Knock yourself out!"

"God tells you to burn people alive to celebrate Spring? Um, that's a pretty stupid god and faith and lifestyle you've chosen ..."

Reminds me of a quote: "Thou shalt not subject thy god unto the market forces!"

 

[Takhisis]

Over time, society will select for the more benign religions, if only because it makes for nicer neighborhoods.

Nah, they keep going in for Talibanism, jihad, Crusades, My Little Pony, the Irgun, militant Buddhism, bloodthirsty Indian deities like Kali, and all other degenerate falsehoods.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Some people will, but a lot more people will become less moral based on the number of people saying: "I am moral because God". How many people are out there saying: "I am NOT moral because God"? That's the only statistic leading me to this conclusion. Some people will become more moral, some will stay the same, but more people will become less moral, based on the simple premise that if you interviewed all religious people in the world, a lot more would say "I derive my morality from God" than "I derive my lack of morality from God". I don't see how you could argue against that logic.

What people say and what people do aren't the same thing. People who kill infidels will probably think their actions not only moral, but divine. Doesn't mean they're right. Religion often makes people intolerant, judgemental and hypocritical.

 

[onejayhawk]

They should come up with a new Bible where god created science. That way no matter what is discovered he is just unveiling another intentional mystery.

That would not require a new Bible. It's in this one.

J

 

[El_Machinae]

That's a pretty big stretch. Especially if you recall that science is a process of investigation.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I can go with science in the Bible. Science is an ongoing process. In the Bible the early stages of that process can be found.

 

[Smellincoffee]

Science is an exact methodology, not just an interest in the natural world. You may be able to find studying-nature-as-theology in the bible, but science?

 

[onejayhawk]

I can go with science in the Bible. Science is an ongoing process. In the Bible the early stages of that process can be found.

I was going with the eternal mystery part, but this works too.

The development of monotheism was crucial for science, since it removed spirit forces from explanations of natural order. It seems appropriate to mention this on a Civ site.

J

 

[peter grimes]

Nonsense. Monotheism was just as much as an obstruction to the development of science as any other anima-laden belief system.

Alchemy is really the thing that led to what we think of as science.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was going with the eternal mystery part, but this works too.

The development of monotheism was crucial for science, since it removed spirit forces from explanations of natural order. It seems appropriate to mention this on a Civ site.

J

Where in the Bible does it say that there are no spiritual forces controlling the natural order?

 

[Kyriakos]

Nonsense. Monotheism was just as much as an obstruction to the development of science as any other anima-laden belief system.

Alchemy is really the thing that led to what we think of as science.

Zalmoxis was (supposedly) a monotheistic deity as well, and it is unlikely that the ancient North Thracians had much to do with science..

I also agree that Christianity by itself did not help science. It did help (in the end) to stop the endless border wars due to some sense of common (religious) culture. But that too did not work most of the time, and it worked the other way around as well (heathens, other religions etc).

 

[Leoreth]

It did help (in the end) to stop the endless border wars due to some sense of common (religious) culture.

Where?

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, the best example i am aware of would be in the Crimea, between the Byz empire and Rus. Rus was pretty much a usual part of any anti-Byz alliance until it became fully christian..

Although iirc there were still issues, and even Basil II had to first secure an alliance with Rus before returning to the aeon-old wars with Bulgaria, and in the end annexing it.

In general the wars were always raging between widely different realms in regards to wealth (eg Roman empire and everything else) or culture (Byz and Sassanid, Byz and Islamic etc).

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, fair enough, but going so far as praising Christianity for bringing peace inside its borders seems to be ridiculous considering European history.

 

[Tahuti]

On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church did survive the great migrations and the fall of the Roman Empire. Considering many nations ceased to exist during that period because of the events that unfolded back then, I would consider that a major feat for any institutions.

 

[Hygro]

They should come up with a new Bible where god created science. That way no matter what is discovered he is just unveiling another intentional mystery.

A lot of new age subtypes espouse exactly that, or even more liberally and human centric. Indeed I was brought up to believe something similar.